May 03, 2018 | Author: Mircea Popescu

Contrary to what you might (mistakenly) imagine, the female herd is neither interesting nor important in either of the two perspectives. Females are social objects, not social agents ; and this for very strong, fundamental reasons intricately tied to human biology -- meaning that no social convention or subjective conceit can possibly touch them no matter what happens or appears to be happening.

The difference between matriarchy and patriarchy arises strictly in the social valuation of males, and the creation of the male hierarchy.

The matriarchal approach posits that male value is established through mating, and male hierarchy is a reflection thereof (a dysfunctional ball of nonsense we've discussed before).

The patriarchal approach posits that male value is established by the group of males, as a function of male hierarchy, and mating is a reflection thereof.i

Consequently the patriarchal notion of rape will be "the taking of another man's property", whereas the matriarchal notion of rape will be "the taking of a woman [outside of the agreed upon arrangements in which her mating confers value upon the male]", a string of yakkity-yak which readily reduces to... "the taking of a woman", period.ii

Also contrary to what you might (mistakenly) imagine, matriarchy is not "good for women". Matriarchy is not good for anyone, and exactly in the sense cheloids are not "good for the skin" : matriarchy is a degenerative process.

Matriarchy only manifests in groups where the instant value of males comes significantly under the historical value of males for that group ; this is not to be confused with "successful groups" -- matriarchy is what happens once a group that used to be successful is successful no longer.

Matriarchy is a purely economic result, driven by purely economic factors ; it is entirely apolitical, and rests utterly outside of any sort of group-bound agency howsoever defined. It eminently and fundamentally has absolutely nothing to do with "the treatment of women in society" or anywhere else -- females are not a driver, nor can possibly ever be a driver, of the workings of society in this sense. To put it bluntly : if you beat them, jail them or pillory them it matters not one whit ; for as long as you think mating in terms of female "choice" you're living in a matriarchy even if you're alone on an otherwise deserted island ; and this has absolutely nothing to do with any woman whatsoever. Conversely, if you think mating in terms of female obligation you're living in a patriarchy irrespective of how the "glass ceiling" (or any other broadly meaningless social conceit) is perceived.

In the end it all boils down to a very simple distinction among two strictly disjunct and absolutely male ways of thinking. Are you cool because your friends think you're cool and за честь должна считать Знакомство юнкерского хуя! or else are you a proud boyfriend/husband/father/cuck/whatever and your "friends" better agree (and if they don't fail to you're going to ask Mommy/facebook for a new set of "friends") ?

And of course, contrary to what you might (mistakenly) imagine, this is not a choice in the sense that you may choose. If you live in type A societies you'll either be type A or a weirdo ; and if you live in type B societies you'll either be type B or a weirdo. Weirdos are definitionally socially irrelevant, irrespective of how you might flatter yourself, and there you go : history is made by great men in the very strict sense that until and unless there's a Great Leader to create a WoT in which you may be cool for being cool, you'll be cool for having been lucky enough for a princess such as Princess to have picked you.

That's it ; and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

———
  1. And therefore a female mated with a loser will be held to explain herself ; while the soldier need not pay. []
  2. This readily explains a whole pile of strange experimentally measured these days. As far as I know no other theory of society fits nearly as well. []