"What are the rules of patriarchy?"
This was a question posed to me on Twitter by a woman going by the handle Submissive Wife. She then later told me to fuck off, but what else could I expect from a "submissive wife" with very liberal views. (You can follow the thread here, but Twitter is weird in that it does not show all replies consistently.)
This question was put to me because of this tweet I put out.
It's all fucked & needs to be razed to the ground, reduced to smoldering embers, then washed away and replanted with pure patriarchal seeds.— Maximus Decimus (@mercifulmaximus) July 23, 2017
And the first reply from Submissive Wife, followed by my response.
The problem lies (sadly) with western women. We KNOW what the rules once were. Will women go backward to move forward to sanity?— Maximus Decimus (@mercifulmaximus) July 24, 2017
Typical of the faux submissive female, she "agreed" with me (many did), but when the rubber met the road, she and all the other women jumped on me and said effectively "if this is patriarchy, we want no part of it."
I have been thinking about the new rules of patriarchy for a long time and I thought this Twitter exchange a good focal point to start writing about the new rules that are coming. Not IF... but WHEN. It also dawned on me that no one is writing about this. We have in the hundreds of thousands of blogs and posts on the need for patriarchy to return, on hypergamy and the feminine imperative, on Game and sexing women and on making bank and being fit and stylish. But for all the digital ink that has been spilt, I honestly cannot remember ever coming across a single article on the new rules of patriarchy we so hope will return.
Wait... there was one, but how many of you younger pups even remember this blog.
I will never forget reading that post (but can't find it now). Here was a guy writing for the manosphere with zero interest in hustling or making a buck. These were just older guys who had gone through the 90s meat grinder of divorce court hell and with blogging, they found an outlet to vent and warn the younger guys coming along.
What was that post about?
How a patriarchal revision of child custody laws would actually work.
And that is what I want to focus this article on - the actual legal workings of a modern patriarchal law system.
I don't know if you will agree with me on what I am about to write, but I think it is time men started thinking less about sex & money, and instead focus on how an actual patriarchy would work so we can create a political movement. There is also not a lot that needs to be codified in my opinion. If we can fix all the below problems, what else needs to be done? Once men are back in charge of the home & state, and women are put in their proper role and place, the rest can be sorted out by men. As it once was, so it will be again.
So let's get to it and start with the most important patriarchal rule that was broken that started the collapse of the The West.
Voting - Women have forfeited the right to participate in the polis.
I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.
Yes... the repeal of a woman's right to vote is now being discussed in the manosphere.
I don't think women quite understand just what is coming down the road in the future. We are now reaching a point where not just men, but even I suspect a rare and small number of women, are seriously considering that it is time to end the participation of women in politics.
Roosh replied to a comment on this article who stated that his ideal was 19th century England. He elaborated on the points Roosh made about how the root of The West's political & cultural implosion can all be linked back to the source - granting women the right to vote - but disagreed that women's suffrage actually needs to be repealed. The commentor did not feel women needed to lose the vote. Instead, he felt strongly that women needed to be educated on how much their voting power has destroyed The West. To this end, Roosh said he was working on this very project in reply and I am curious to see what he comes up with. What this shows is that while Roosh has for the first time issued a policy plank of repealing a woman's right to vote for a future patriarchal political platform, there are still many men who are uncomfortable with going that far.
What is the point of all this background context I am providing you?
The repeal of women's suffrage, the right to vote, is on the table and will become a political hot topic in the future.
It is now just a matter of true patriarchs refuting the rebuttals of those men- yes, even Red Pill woke men - who still cling to the idea of some kind of equality of the sexes in the political sphere. Here is my proof.
I think maybe we need a version of RoK that's targeted to women so we can properly frame things for them. That way they can come down from the mountain of nonsense they've climbed on top of.
Perhaps we can educate a few women, but you will never get a majority of women to "come down from the mountain of nonsense" that is feminism and their power in the politics and legal system of The West today. What I believe is going to happen is that a new and more pure form of patriarchal resurgence, that has begun under Trump, will form around the younger generation of boys in The West today who have never known what a patriarchal culture is. They will be learning it online and in conversation with their friends in their very own no-girls-allowed club of social media and memes.
The future politics and politicians of The West are going to be divided between men and women.
And with that polarization will come the tipping point in the balance of votes. All men will be voting for repeal of women's suffrage by that point and many women will be as well. And that is where we will get our majority to repeal it. Women themselves, the ones the manosphere is know waking up, are going to vote to have their political power taken away.
This is really the root fear driving the insanity in western politics today, especially in the USA. The left - feminists, SJWs and LGBT - have nothing but identity politics to pin their stumping for votes on. Every attempt to claim they are speaking and standing up for "regular folk" (i.e. us heterosexual norms in the majority) will be canceled out when they have to defend race/homosexuality. This is why Trump's banning of trannies in the military was sheer genius. Every leftist now has to own this gender shit, and in doing so they will never get elected, ever. The polarization of politics is going to increasingly blur away from fiscal, foreign and other policies of contrast and attack, to just heterosexuals vs feminists, gays and racial identity. And when this happens, a new patriarchy is inevitable because no sane person wants any of this leftist shit anymore, and no one will believe they care about "real people" because they will not be able to drop the feminist/LGBT ideology. The only people that will be offering sane and intelligent solutions to real problems... will be us, patriarchs.
If you think I am crazy... you need to watch this.
This boy is nine years old, and he does not give a shit what his classmates (i.e. girls), teachers (and probably parents) think about his political views. This... is the generation that is coming behind Millenials. US Presidents have ignored young boys for decades. These young boys have had...
And an all butch dyke Ghostbusters.
(Note: Click at least the first and last of those links. Trust me.)
Shoved. Down. Their Throats.
In school and in entertainment, from President to Principle, young boys have been told that 'girl power' is the only power there is and to be a boy, is a deplorable and sad state of affairs.
In his speech to boy scouts, Trump just showed the entire nation what the future of politics will be in The West.
That future is a patriarchy and women will be kicked out, with prejudice.
So, how do I think voting should be legally defined in the future?
i. Women who are married or living with either parent cannot vote.
ii. Women who are single, independent, employed and supporting themselves CAN vote. She has skin in the game, we can't deny her right to participate. She also cannot be living with a male of any kind, in any capacity.
iii. All adult age men (over 20, same for women) who are working and supporting themselves can vote.
iv. Anyone presently incarcerated, male or female, cannot vote. Once their debt to society has been paid for their crimes, and they have been discharged, the normal rules for voting apply.
v. No gender theory, identity or assignment/surgery can alter who can or cannot vote. Your right to vote is based on your biological gender, and nothing else.
vi. Only legal citizens of a country by birth can vote. Immigrants can vote after a decade of residence and with proof of independent support of themselves and all dependents for the last five years of that probationary decade. 2nd generation citizens born to the country can vote at the age of 30, ten years into full adulthood and thus demonstrating loyalty to the country by remaining and contributing. 3rd generation immigrants born in the country are considered natural citizens and normal voting rules apply.
Just six legal points that cover more than just women, but this should give you an idea of where I am going with the legal topics to follow.
Marriage & Divorce- The repeal of No Fault & return of the traditional definition.
After the vote, the legal victory for no-fault divorce is the 2nd horseman of the feminist apocalypse that has been unleashed on western men. It will be repealed, but what will take it's place? Much like Obamacare, it has to go, but there will be a huge vacuum filled with angry reaction if we don't replace it with something that is fair and equitable to both genders. We are not going back to a divine indissoluble union, but something with legal teeth does need to be setup to ensure that marriage is a respected institution again. One that men will want to enter into to secure a partner and legacy by starting a family.
i. Right off the top, common law relationship status is stricken from the legal code. If you are shacked up with someone and you break up, you both go your separate ways. There is no legal recourse for either spouse for any compensatory supports. Shack up, break up, move on. (Children of this type of union will be discussed in the next section.)
ii. An application for a marriage license is just that, an application. The couple must wait two years before they can get legally married. This allows enough time for true "committed" personalities to come out. It will also force couples to start thinking about marriage earlier in a relationship because of the waiting period to be legally married. No more shot gun weddings. No more quickie engagements and 3-months-to-wedded-bliss where divorce papers are being filed before the wedding album is even back from the printer (true story).
iii. Once married, no divorce request will even be considered for at least 7 years. You can still get divorced, but you will have to wait. Neither couple can remarry during this seven year period. This allows for the natural "itch" to kick in and be resolved, or dissolved. Again, it is not "restrictive" of anyone's freedom. This is to ensure a proper union for long term support of both individuals themselves and the children they produce. This will also, once again, get both people thinking long term about who they are marrying. (No one wants to be stuck married to the wrong person for seven years.) Thus a new patriarchy will still allow the option to divorce, but it has limits.
iv. A request for divorce must prove either fault, or enter into the court a written summary of the reasons why this union has reached "irreconcilable differences". A jury, not a judge, must in the majority confirm the fault or reasons for dissolution. Both of which will be available, upon request, by any new potential marriage suitor. No one, not male or female, is going to break a marriage union without knowing why it did not work out, and no one will enter into marriage with a divorced person without knowing why that person got divorced. This is not something that should be left to personal reflection and disclosure. We are talking about real lives entering into a legal contract, with legal obligations.
i. Jury selection for a divorce proceeding will be broken into thirds. One third from the bride's family, one third from the groom's and one third selected at random from the general public who have no personal or business ties to either. All general public jurors must sign non-disclosure agreements (impossible to do with family). All jurors, if it can be proved have leaked information of the conclusions of the divorce to any public source (media, social or mainstream), can be prosecuted and levied heavy fines.
vi. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Period. No more needs to be said.
If women are no longer going to be able to vote, they sure as hell want to know if the money is going to keep flowing. Well it will, but not the way they want it.
i. Even though common law won't be recognized for compensatory reasons, it will be recognized as a state of not being married. Thus, an unmarried women in a relationship with a man, if they break up, is entitled to nothing in terms of financial support from that man. Again, simple & reasonable is it not?
ii. A married woman on the other hand will be entitled to spousal support, but it will be limited. An ex-wife will receive 5 years, no more, of alimony support upon divorce. The amount will be no more than 50% of the ex-husbands disposable cash flow income.
Just throwing this number out there. The point is, alimony will be legally limited, in both time and dollars, to allow a man to retain all the rewards of his production. The ex-wife, having given up that source of provision, is cut off at some point and must move on. Assets and other investments are too complicated to be clarified in this single post, but they will most likely flow along the same lines that are in place now. The key point is hard cash - the alimony payment from an ex-husband. Five years honey. That's how much time you got to get your shit together and live on your own.
Oh... and if she re-marries or shacks up with ANY man (with cucks or bucks), no more alimony for you!!!
Child Custody & Support
Now we get to the most important, and for many fathers emotional, aspect of the nightmare that is divorce. This is also where I got the spark to write this post, for what follows came from that post I read on No Maam all those many years ago with my own personal elaborations and additions.
i. If common law, full custody is given to the mother. The father can petition for 50/50 joint custody, but must demonstrate he is not a threat and can be a responsible and caring parent. The father in an unmarried state has no rights over the children and must petition for visitation rights or custody.
ii. If married, full custody is given to the father. As a father, he has entered into a binding relationship with a woman in marriage and has taken full public and legal authority to properly raise any children from this union. As a woman who has chosen to leave a man who is the father and provider, she gives up the right of authority and responsibility to those children and must therefore make a claim for visitation or custody before the courts.
iii. If any child is under seven years of age, 50/50 joint custody is automatic of those children. This is to ensure the children have both parents in their lives at the earliest and most crucial personality forming stage. This is non-negotiable and no petition for sole custody will be heard. The only case for petition of sole custody would be if a spouse has beyond doubt evidence that the children remaining in the care of the other parent will be in direct danger. This will be a serious petition and the evidence must be there and if not, could seriously jeopardize that parents custody/visitation claims in the future. As each child reaches seven years of age, full custody of that child is as stipulated in points i and ii.
iv. Visitation rights must be petitioned for. In most cases, a petition for visitation will be granted. What the petition application for visitation rights is designed to do is work out the details and make them legally enforceable. Any parent that puts up road blocks to visitation could lose custody of their children. Each ex-spouse can put forward claims to either deny visitation rights or sue for joint custody. This is where all the dirt gets aired out. Everything said and claimed in a visitation or custody claim will be used for and against the plaintiff. Slander, lies, false accusations... all face serious legal fines and possible jail time. There needs to be real teeth in the laws around child custody and visitation claims. You can't just run around saying anything you like and getting "family" or "friends" to back you up. You MUST have proof of your claims. If there is any process of a divorce that needs real and serious legal deterrents it is in false claims and allegations of abuse of children against a parent (usually the father) in child custody and visitation proceedings.
Some of you might be asking why I have split the custody of children along the lines of married or not married. The reason is simple. This allows both men and women to make a choice. If a woman wants authority in the relationship over her children, she can find a man who does not believe in marriage as an institution, either of the government or of God, and have "bastard" kids with him. Any man that fathers children OUSIDE of committed marriage, does not deserve to have any authority or access to those children. This is more in line with matrilineal societies and it is shown that many men and woman prefer this arrangement, so clarifying it in legal code and making the rules clear for such a union only makes sense.
On the other hand, if a Man wants to assume his full role as authority and patriarch, he will insist on marriage before children are born. And thus he will be accorded full respect and authority as patriarch by the state. Again, many women prefer a man to be in charge and the authority and this allows for recognition of these types of unions. This will also make the commitment of marriage crystal clear to women. You get married, your husband is the authority. Don't like it? Go get knocked up by a man who won't take responsibility for you or your offspring.
It is a beautiful balance of the two reproductive strategies of both sexes, that of r and K selection. By fully taking into account evolutionary biology into child custody laws, no parent of either gender can cry foul. If a guy is stupid enough to knock up a girl, well, he is not on the hook financially for her or the kids, but he does not get to see them either. I see no injustice in this. On the other hand, any man who is responsible enough to choose a worthy female for marriage and sets his mind to "father" children, should be accorded full rights and authority over his wife and legacy. He has COMMITTED to a female. He has COMMITTED his resources to her and their children. If she wants to Eat Pray Love, she can go right ahead, but she WON'T be seeing her kids.
And the sweetness here is... the divorce itself. There must be fault found, or reasons outlined, and both will be taken heavily into account by a jury (again, no judges, only peers and split evenly between men and women) about what is best for the children.
Homosexuality & Gender Confusion/Sexual Deviancy
Finally, we get to the last horseman of The West's apocalypse. I did not plan on writing on the four horsemen, but it is clear that this is exactly what we have - an apocalypse on western society unleashed by feminism and the fourth and final horse being... the gays.
I won't even bother finding pictures of any gay pride parade to PROVE how fucked up this lifestyle is. This is the real tragedy... for honest gay men and women. Those who truly just want to love each other are being forced back into the closet by the freaks they refuse to police and condemn. The push now for acceptance of trannies is what broke the heterosexual camel's back. And thus the push to force this lifestyle as a choice (when in the 90s it was "natural and genetic") on our children is what is going to bring back the suppression of all LGBT activity in The West.
But we will do it by respecting, first and foremost, all these people as human beings.
i. No more public displays or promotion of LGBT sexual orientation and lifestyle. All PUBLIC gay pride and culture expressions, in any medium, are now illegal with stiff jail times. Walking around naked with your cock painted gold (yes, the photo is out there) is NOT "expressing yourself". It is fucking indecent and no child, nor adult, should be exposed to it. We have public indecency laws for a reason and they will be enforced once more. The same goes for gay literature, film and other artistic endeavours. All of this will be allowed... IN PRIVATE. Any promotion of such material will be strictly monitored. As long as it is descent, and does not flagrantly promote sexual themes and acts in the public space, LGBT communities can continue to share and celebrate their lifestyle choice... IN PRIVATE.
ii. There is no recognition of gay marriage. Marriage is an institution for the perpetuation of a countries culture and values by creating new citizens raised in committed heterosexual marriage. Since gays cannot have children (biologically speaking), their is ZERO reason to have their unions recognized by the state, because the state is not concerned about two people who will not produce future citizens.
iii. There is no legal recourse for partner financial support upon break up. This is just ridiculous and is the ONLY reason gays wanted their "marriages" to be recognized. Again, there are no children. All there is in a gay union is two adults combining lives. If they break up, they can simply go their separate ways.
iv. No legal recourse for discrimination. Full legal protection against violence and assault based on sexual orientation will remain. But, if you are tatted and painted, don't expect an employer to higher you. If a photographer or a gym feels your personal form of "expression" does not fit with their business or does not wish to serve you, I am sorry, but you will have to go elsewhere. You cannot force someone to accept your way of life and interact with you based solely on your sexual orientation. This is what is currently turning the acceptance of LGBT back to repression. You have gone too far, and such childish antics will no longer be tolerated.
v. Gays are allowed to adopt children under strict conditions, and conceive them freely. There is no way to stop a gay couple from finding a way to conceive a child and raise it in the 21st century. Adoption may be allowed but only if they can demonstrate a committed relationship of at least seven years. This will force a gay couple to think of the future, just like a heterosexual couple. This forces responsibility and planning early in a gay man or woman's life if they are set on wanting children, to find a partner that is of the same mind. That said, all children in a gay family will have state monitoring of mental and physical health. The gay couple must demonstrate that the child is being given every opportunity to grow up a normal boy or girl, and move forward to a normal heterosexual relationship orientation. Since the vast majority of gay men and women have some type of physical or sexual abuse in their past, it is paramount this is not repeated in the children they raise. The house must also be free of all indecent gay lifestyle themes, specifically nude images and other degenerate media and lifestyle.
I understand the last point - children in a gay family - will not sit will with many as being allowed in a patriarchal legal system. To this I counter, how are you going to stop it? How are you going to stop a gay or lesbian couple from finding a way to conceive a child? I say it is far better to simply put some restrictions and monitoring on it to prevent the obvious passing on of "gay values", which is the real concern many heterosexual people have about gay families and the children being raised in them. If they are a responsible couple, and demonstrate they want the child's best health and happiness, that is all a patriarchy should care about. Since we are not denying gays the right to have children, there will be no push back to having some restrictions applied (and I suspect many would support and welcome them). The issue is not whether a gay couple can raise a good child. It is whether they are going to corrupt that child and force, or heavily influence, their child to adopt their own lifestyle and values, to live as they do. Again, we can't stop it, so we should at least try to outline what a gay family would look like under patriarchal standards. Lastly, if we allow gays to have children, there is a very good likely they simply won't. If we deny it, they will demand it. The gay lifestyle by default is not pro children. And those gays that do decide to conceive/adopt, will have to prove fitness and responsibility to be parents.
Prostitution - Legalizing the world's oldest profession.
I am loathe to include this lost legal point. It is not a horseman of the apocalypse, but it is a clearly old patriarchal conundrum. What to do with women who will not submit to a man, yet need to support themselves? What to do with men who do not want to ever get married of have children, but have a DNA drive to have sex that will find an outlet?
i. Sex would be legal for sale AND purchase. The only reason the later is illegal is because it leaves sexual intimacy in the monopoly of marriage. If men can freely and safely secure sex without commitment, women (and the state) has zero leverage over these men. Out of all the most controversial new patriarchal laws, I suspect this one will still be the most debated and resisted by women.
ii. Mandatory registration of sex workers and health screening by the state. It is not illegal. You don't have to work in the shadows anymore. This allows the state to monitor the sex industry because it is closely linked to drugs, alcohol and other vices. The state would be up front in promotion of safe sex and health standards for both provider and client. There will also be a window of public availability of who is in the sex trade. When you apply for a marriage licence, you can voluntarily select if you would like to know if your potential partner has ever been in the sex trade. Both men and women deserve to know this before entering into marriage. That said, after a ten year absence from the sex industry as a working professional, your record is deleted. This allows individuals to privately enter, and leave, the sex industry and not have to worry about future reputation, employment or marriage concerns. No employer or education facility can check these records. Only an application for marriage will be allowed, and only if voluntarily requested. If it is going to be legal, there should be no shame associated with sex for money, but that does not mean you should have the right to hide this fact if you are active as a sex worker and someone is contemplating a marriage commitment to you. Clients do not have to register, but the MUST use their full legal name when contracting sex services. Providers must have a means of legal recourse if violence occurs and the police must be brought in. There will be no more "Johns" because it is no longer illegal. As for marriage, since 90% of all providers see only married men anyway, the need for a woman to know if her potential marriage partner has seen a sex worker is minimal. The nature of men being what they are, casual sex before marriage is not as important a factor in long term commitment for a man as it is for a woman. Lastly, if she is putting out, her husband will never need a escorts sex services, and the fact it is now LEGAL means wives will be more honest in providing the intimacy their husbands request, or they can go to a woman who will.
iii.Seeing a professional sex worker will not be grounds for fault in divorce. There is no adultery being comitted. If it can be proved that a greater financial relationship/dependence is being established than simply being a regular client (i.e. his resources are now streaming to two women significantly enough to impact family finances), then a legal claim can be made for fault. The point being, with sex work legal, no man need go out and have an affair. And if he IS seeing a sex worker, it is most likely because his wife has stopped caring for herself physically and her husbands needs sexually and emotionally. Again, it bears repeating that the vast majority of a sex workers clients are married men. There is a reason for this and that reason is why women will resist legalizing sex work like a caged animal before fighting to keep the vote.
iv. Sex industry advertising and promotion will be severely restricted and monitored. A new patriarchy will not be unleashing an open world brothel with women lining the streets and men competing openly to purchase this or that girl. No nudity. No public sales. (i.e. street walkers) No explicit wording. Sex work terms and experiences will be worked out with the state so that each provider can discreetly list her services for sale. Just as with the ban on LGBT public displays and promotion, the same restrictions will apply to the sex industry. The point is to make the sale of sex discrete, polite, respectable and honest. Clients can report false representations and said sex worker will have their license revoked. This must be proven of course, so clients that falsely accuse a sex professional of false advertising will face stiff fines and their name blacklisted in the industry.
This is a short section and I only added at the very end. It is a real moral problem for a future patriarchy, but I don't see how going forward in the 21st century, with so much contraception available, that this can be policed and removed from society without generating more harm than good. I think the greatest advantage of legalizing sex work is that it frees both men and woman who do not want children or to get married to seek out and fulfill both intimacy and financial needs. You repress it, you make it worse, but this is just my opinion.
So there you have it. A first attempt at a new patriarchal legal code. This is where I want to drive the patriarchal renaissance if I am able to. I hope you share this article far and wide because if you do, I can almost guarantee that feminists and the left are going to absolutely lose their shit.
There is also still plenty of ground yet to cover and please share in the comments below your own thoughts on a legal topic and remedy for it in a new patriarchy. Here are just a few of my own.
- false rape accusations
- sexual harrasement in the workplace
- whether women can actually work at all if married (and especially if children are under seven)
- what is the status of a single mother
This... is why they don't want men talking.
This... is why they are losing.
Patriarchy is coming back and this time it will be perfected and made absolute.
Strength & Honor