Hard Power vs. Soft Powers – Patriarchy or Matriarchy?

Ever since third-wave feminism solified its grasp in the Western world, the term Patriarchy has been a key concept in its mainstream theory.


There are many a definition of the term “Patriarchy” as understood by feminist theory; one might fall into the temption of discussing the various definitions, but that would be no use. Essentially, it is a form of Great Other, which is used as an abstract, lumped-together group including all enemies and all opposition. It is also a self-absolving negative imperative, which enables a pseudo-bolshevik concept of vanguard, where feminists think of themsleves as always representing an idealised majority, even though they are a minority.

In many a way, it closely follows bolshevik-stalinist praxis and theory, even though Bolshevism has always used a positive imperative – “The People” or “The Revolution”. It is essentially the same mechanism that allowed Soviet and Soviet-aligned communists to identfy 1956 Hungarian revolutionaries as “anti-revolutionary” and “enemies of the people”, even though pretty much the entirety of the Hungarian population rose up in arms or actively opposed Soviet communism. By virtue of sufficiently well-structured imperative, it is possible to ideologically flip majority/minority relationships, and thus remaining “the rightful ones”.

That said, such a vapid, ethereal concept is very hard to positively identify in real mechanics and institutions in the world of polity. It seems, though, that feminists tend to call “patriarchal” any situation where men hold more hard power than women.

This is evidently a fallacious approach, since it tends to create a metapolitical substrate that inevitably leads to incomplete and disastrously wrong approaches to politics.

Why?

Essentially, feminists seek to destroy so-called “patriarchal” structures, which, in their vision is done by stripping men of the greatest amoung of hard power (or access to hard power) possible, and somehow awarding it to women.

I won’t get into the argument of why it is only natural that men hold more hard power than women, given their biological predisposition to leadership, physical fitness, discipline, and camaraderie, which i have partly discussed in this article, which I am confident most readers will be familiar with.

On the other hand, my intention here is outlining the immense power that women hold by default in society – soft power.

Ever since humans have been known to organise into societies, women’s soft power has been a crucial factor in determining a given society’s success or downfall.

And women’s soft power is essentially their sexual power.

The Iliad, one of the greatest pieces of literature ever produced in history of the West, is, in short, the history of two societies and thousands of men waging war on each other over a most beautiful woman, Helene.

Plato, one of the founders of Western philosophy, correctly identified this problem and tried to address it by proposing a proto-communistic sharing of women in his Republic.

It is a historical constant that whenever women’s soft power was unlimited and excessively promiscuous, that would mark the beginning of an era of hedonism, social upheaval, anarchy and, ultimately, downfall. What a most famous French artist’s painting called L’Origin du Vide(meaning the Origin of Life) depicts, I would also call “The End of the World”.

In every place and every time, women have been able to influence the society they were living in from behind the scenes, by merely taking advantage of their natural qualities. As Roman citizens in the late dominate period famously complained: “Rome rules the world, but it is women who rule Rome”.

As men can be more or less equal in their chances to exercise hard power in a society (regarding natural qualities), and pretty much only differing in wit, women are grossly unequal among each other – and their physical attractiveness directly influences the soft power they can wield. This is obviously very destabilising, as less attractive women resent the more attractive ones, and try to oppose them in every possible way, while the men can fall to temptation.

Which is exactly what Plato fails to see in his Republic, i.e. that women’s beauty differences also make them differently influential – and hence, differently powerful. In fact, I will add this: while men’s institutions and political praxis is in constant change, sexual power and fascination exercised by women is eternal and unrepenting.

The only few societies that have successfully repressed women’s soft power, have adapted the most brutal and barbaric customs, the foremost example being Islam:

The veil/niqab/burqa are nothing but means intented to prevent women from successfully establishing non-marital contact with other males in a closed society, as well as removing younger women’s innate higher attractiveness from social interactions; Islamic polygamy is the institutions that allows men to destroy a wife’s monopoly on sexual satisfaction and affection, by imposing the satisfaction of these needs on alternative partners. These are just a few examples.

We need to accept that women have and always are going to have the upper hand in sexual transactions, and we need to destroy the idea that severely limiting access to hard power by men and enforcing a 50-50 (the most moderate feminist proposition) sex division of political and cultural power production is going to somehow, magically, improve Western societies in any way. Leaving women’s monopoly untouched and handing them 50% of a society’s hard power is going to only lead to disastrous consequences for the West – rather than a “patriarchy”, a true matriarchy.

And if that is combined with the incapability or unwillingness to tackle our model of society’s hedonistic tendencies, the cocktail’s lethality is certain.

Ironically, even feminists have noticed that a society where men have limited influence in society and feminine hedonism is given free reign is essentially a society where a few females (the physically most attractive ones) live in the perpetual bliss of having countless males struggling for an ounce of their attention, essentially focussing only on their own and others’ peacock-like vanity – until the dominating female chooses the one worthy of satisfying their carnal desires, until the cycle restarts. In a hedonistic society, less-than-beautiful women are entirely purposeless and are unable to find any respectable mates (thus further exacerbating the drop of birth rates in the West).

Certainly, the abominable tendencies that Western feminists have always had to glorify ugliness and unattractiveness is backfiring spectacularly – and feminists have not been exactly known to be the most attractive people around.

Feminism was always hostile to attractive women, but feminist-led dismantling of male influence in society has been making more and more evident that the true enemy of females as a gender is not the male sex, but attractive women.

This is how we can identify the lukewarm attitude towards sexuality that feminists have acquired in the last few years, far from the “sex-positive” attitude of the first decade of the 21st century (e.g. The crusade against sexual depictions of women in all forms of media).

The early concept of “sex-positivity”, i.e. the notion that carefree sex, double-digit numbers of sex partners and all kinds of debauchery (polyamory, open relationships, etc.) has given way to the realisation that the women who are going to actually be able to live such hedonistic lifestyles are only actually attractive women.

Male power is entirely identical with its rituals. A most common feminist mocking catchphrase is that “Masculinity is fragile”. Well, it is. And they perfectly know it.

Like the diamond, the hardest thing known to mankind but also a most fragile one, masculinity can produce the most sublime peaks of civilizations, in all fields – but as soon as its spaces are compressed and its values contested, its potency decreases rapidly.

Female power is always abstract, hyperuranian. Male power is always the products of its rituals.

Hence, as has been found to be true in many animal species, it is not masculinity that creates authority, it is authority that creates masculinity.

Oswald Langobard

Associate Writer for the Common Sense Post. Political Science, History. Identitarian Right.
No Comments

Leave a Reply

*

*

src="http://www.commonsensepost.net/wp-content/themes/Observer/images/336x280.jpg" alt="336x280ad">