TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

What religions and/or philosophies do RPW follow?

[deleted]

July 8, 2014
6 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title What religions and/or philosophies do RPW follow?
Author

[deleted]
Upvotes 6
Comments 62
Date July 8, 2014 12:32 AM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2a3lhq/what_religions_andor_philosophies_do_rpw_follow/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-religions-andor-philosophies-do-rpw-follow.285361
https://theredarchive.com/post/285361
Red Pill terms in post
RPW

Comments

[–]ddrlunaPurple Pill Woman11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of stuff that gets posted in the RPW forum is Christian, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the ladies there are atheist/agnostic (including myself).

[–]Scarlett_Begonias8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

I think it's very interesting that many red pillers are atheist/agnostic, even though they agree with the Judeo-Christian tradition when it comes to marriage and gender roles. However, I've also seen complaints about "Christian white knighting", not 100% sure what that means though.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

People usually identify as atheist or agnostic because of the lack of factual evidence of the existence of a god. That does not mean they have to entirely oppose the ways Abrahamic religions have shaped and still shape Western culture and morality.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I know, I just think it's interesting that those values can be perpetuated without Christianity or any other religion. The people at Fox News would never believe it.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, so true. It's an argument many have tried to sell to me in their attempts to save my soul from eternal damnation.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Why is it interesting to agree with something loosely related with religion even if you aren't religious?

[–]Bonig0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Because it is an counterexample against the notion that Christian values be perpetuated through Christianity only (with Christianity including the belief in God). In my country, Christian parties are a huge thing. The idea that Christianity as a religion is needed to have Christian values and morals is widespread.

It would be even more interesting to hear how many of the atheist/agnostic people who pursue Christian values were raised Christian and later converted to atheism/agnosticism and how many were raised atheist/agnostic yet still pursue Christian values.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The bible has a lot of completely common sense views on morality and pardon my totally non-PC wording, but it is absolutely retarded to claim the bible is the very source of morality. It is 100% unnecessary in leading one to have moral fiber and needn't ever be discussed in childhood for children to learn right from wrong. I was raised Jewish until I was 7 when my mom converted to paganism/nature worship which she tried to instill in me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Funny thing about the bible is Satan is pretty much the good guy. God wants to punish human beings right from Genesis, but Satan just wanted us to be free. God killed millions in the bible, Satan hardly killed anyone. If there's any kind of religion to be gained from the bible it's LaVeyan Satanism. An atheistic moral code based on the biblical figure of Satan.

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LaVeyan Satanism:

LaVeyan Satanism (also known as Atheistic Satanism or Modern Satanism), often referred to simply as Satanism among most adherents, was founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its core beliefs and philosophies are based on individualism, free thought, skepticism, epicureanism, secularism, self-deification and "eye for an eye" morality.

Contrary to popular belief, LaVeyan Satanism does not involve "devil worship" or worship of any deities, but viewing them instead as an archetype; it is an atheistic philosophy that uses the character of "Satan" as a symbol of pride, carnality, liberty, enlightenment, undefiled wisdom, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be permeated and motivated by a force that has been given many names by humans over the course of time. Also the "Satan" character was chosen for representing defiance to the conservatism of mainstream philosophical and religious currents, mainly Abrahamic religions, that see this character as their antithesis.

Anton LaVey established Satanism's first and largest religious organization, the Church of Satan, in 1966, and codified Satanic beliefs and practices in The Satanic Bible in 1969. The Church of Satan states that there are a number of Satanists around the world, including both members and non-members. It often rejects the legitimacy of any other organizations of Satanists, dubbing them reverse-Christians, pseudo-Satanists or Devil worshipers.

Image i

Interesting: Church of Satan | The Satanic Bible | Satanism | Anton LaVey

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't really believe in labeling myself as any religion, but I really haven't found anything in my readings about LaVeyan Satanism that I disagree with. If I were forced to choose a religion that would be it. I realize I came off a little harsh in my critique of Christianity, and while I won't say those aren't my true opinions, I don't mean to offend anyone or make them think I'm calling them stupid or something. I'm a little embarrassed by my outburst, but I had just woken up and am cranky in the mornings.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't really believe in labeling myself as any religion, but I really haven't found anything in my readings about LaVeyan Satanism that I disagree with.

This seems to be the case for most LaVeyans actually. People who don't really agree with mainstream religions but find themselves nodding when they read about Satanism.

"Satanists are born, not made." -Anton LaVey

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, while I agree with it I think there's way too much baggage in calling yourself a Satanist. Most people don't understand it at all. It's the same reason if someone asked me my stance on relationships IRL I wouldn't dream of specifically mentioning TRP. I would rather just explain how I see it personally and not have to worry about answering for any of the over-the-top nonsense that may be associated with it.

I like that quote, though.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I do the same if someone asks me about my religion.

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny thing about the bible is Satan is pretty much the good guy.

Well, in about 30-50% of the Bible he's a direct servant of god so that's pretty much par for the course.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Also I'm curious, what country are you from? I live in the Bible Belt of the US, so that belief is widespread where I live as well. I am actually very much a closeted atheist except with my close friends because I would be pretty ostracized. My dad was agnostic but married an evangelical Christian, so from my teenage years on I got really good at wording things so it sounds like I believe in God without outright lying about it.

Sorry about telling you my life story, haha. I just consider where I live to be super heavily influenced by Christianity and I'm not really aware of other countries that take it that seriously, unless you are in the US as well.

[–]Bonig0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm from Germany. Separation of church and state is not really done properly here. The government even collects taxes for the Catholic and Lutheran churches. Two of the parties that are represented in parliament call themselves "Christian" and promote the idea that certain values are particularly Christian and tied to religious belief.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's interesting because, for one thing I think most non-religious people are less traditional in this area. Also, it belies the still very popular idea that morals/values (especially "traditional" values) can only be perpetuated with religion.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are tons of examples showing that religion isn't needed to have some of the morals that are also discussed in the bible, and people like to forget all the awful things in there. It's always been completely obvious to me how the bible is entirely unnecessary in leading someone to be a good person, and I think the male led relationship thing has a bit more nefarious roots when it comes to its inclusion in the bible. I suppose that's why I don't find it interesting. I just never even considered that notion a possibility.

[–]tryin2figureitoutRP male since before it was cool1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I am atheist now, but when I was younger I went to a private fundamentalist Christian school. The Christian culture really reinforces the idea that women are victims in need of saving. Whenever they talked about infidelity or abuse they always framed it as things men do. I never thought a female aggressor was even possible until I grew up, and then it hit like a truck.

The thing you have to understand is that Christian culture doesn't just teach Christian morality, it also teaches that your life will be better and you will be "blessed" or rewarded by behaving this way. So if your raised to believe that women are weak victims that allow themselves to be abused out of devotion that only want to be loved and protected a Christian White Knight is born. Plus you expect to be rewarded so its also a kind of mating dance to demonstrate your value.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I get it now! I've always been very uncomfortable with the Christian idea that women are the "pure, innocent" sort of curators of morality, so they have to be controlled and protected. On one hand you have this Christian white knight thing, but I think many men also take that idea and conclude that their wives and daughters should have no freedom or agency in any area.

[–]tryin2figureitoutRP male since before it was cool0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh yes of course. You wouldn't want your daughter to become one of those girls that are dirty and slutty and unhappy and broken. Unhappy and broken are crucial in this understanding because again if morality is rewarded immorality is punished. We all knew that girls like this existed when I was growing up, but I honestly believed they were the sad deranged minority that had lost there way. God, they had chapels where they put up pictures of people who had committed suicide who were gay or addicts or promiscuous or whatever. Surely, women like that didn't exist in my suburban utopia, nor would they by God.

Of course, being raised this way creates White Knights which then get friendzoned because being supplicatingly nice and supportive and protective doesn't get a girl wet. Then they have a breaking moment when they enter the wrong room at a part and see the object of there desire deep throating a football player that never treats women with respect and probably doesn't even know your "friend's" name. Your personal identity and understanding of the world now destroyed you come online to find sympathy and support and someone to explain to you how this girl who you thought was the one and was pure and innocent could turn out to be one of those small minority of whores that were obviously broken and unhappy. I mean it doesn't make sense, she lived in a nice house, wasn't an addict, she seemed happy, how could she have fooled you for so long? And more then that, why didn't she want YOU. You'd done everything right.

So you find reddit, but its not sympathy you find, but unabashed attacks on your whole. They call you a sniveling fedora wearing neckbeard that just tries to manipulate women. Your dishonest, your a user, your a creep. You shake you head in dismay and disbelief, you can't understand, my God you did everything RIGHT. You listened, you respected, you protected, you didn't push, you supported, you fulfilled your roll perfectly as it had been explained to you. Where's the reward, the blessing? The happily ever after? Why does everyone act like I'm the problem? What did I do wrong? Don't they know I was sincere? How could she touch HIM, he doesn't do anything RIGHT? And then there was Redpill...

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And so you go on to perpetuate the madonna/whore complex that your Christian upbringing instilled in you.

How sad.

[–]tryin2figureitoutRP male since before it was cool-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't talking about me in particular. 6 days is a hell of a delay for a reply.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A oriental would slap you over the face for speaking up with that tone.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Atheist, Objectivist

[–]TempestTcupPost Pill3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

RPW had a thread a while back, and very few of us were religious. I was raised in the Catholic tradition but have now been lapsed about 35 years.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't really have anything to do with religion, but the ideal relationship does mirror that encouraged in the bible. I am an atheist, and many of the most vocal members seem to be as well. I think Aristotle is a pretty cool guy.

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

the ideal relationship does mirror that encouraged in the bible

You mean... husband, wife, and a couple of slave girls on the side?

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

In Christian wedding vows the bride usually promises to love and obey her husband. I'm talking about the modern interpretation and not that interested in going over all the contradictions and bullshit that can be found all over the place in the bible. Fuck Christianity and its morally repugnant roots, but modern evangelical views encourage male led relationships, which are also encouraged in the bible, alongside all the other stupid shit in there that people like to ignore.

[–]SkrattGoddess1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

http://i.imgur.com/uXHnPr2.png

throws cold water on you Breeeeathe! XD

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha. Sorry. Thanks for bringing me back to earth. I don't always bitch about religion, but when I do I get way too intense [insert meme here]. I have nothing against religious people and don't want to make anyone feel otherwise.

[–]SkrattGoddess1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Aha, it's cool xD Didn't want you to get a stroke there! :)

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just looking out for your fellow human. Noble indeed ;-P

[–]SkrattGoddess0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

;D

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the ideal relationship does mirror that encouraged in the bible.

Now waitaminute, you told me earlier that you acknowledged that a traditional relationship was best for you, but not necessarily the ideal.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who said I thought the bible was ideal??? Good lord-I-don't-believe-in, no. It's merely a coincidence that the bible encourages the type of relationship that works best for me. Just like I'm not into the whole owning slaves thing, many people are not going to be into the traditional marriage thing.

Edit: oh! I misunderstood you. I meant the RPW version of an ideal relationship. Sorry.

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I meant the RPW version of an ideal relationship. Sorry.

Lol whew! I don't have a single problem with people who use red pill as a way of exploring their personal tastes, but as son as I here red pillers get political with it, or prescribe their proclivities as the universal ideal, I got beef lol.

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I completely agree with you. I do not support any philosophy/way of life that states anyone who disagrees with it is wrong, except when it comes to obvious stuff like not raping people or beating puppies. Everybody is different. If someone's happy in what they're doing I say go for it as long as it isn't harming anyone else.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am a naturalistic pantheist, which is a secular view people usually forget when they think about non-religiousness. I'm not a professed RPW, but submissiveness does come naturally to me in an intimate relationship, so I relate in many ways.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm an apathetic agnostic. I used to be a Catholic but I don't care much for religion anymore

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm Jewish. So is Dana.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

I think you'll find RPW is mostly atheist and non-religious women because religious women have supportive communities to belong to already in place, whereas RPW atheist women often feel very isolated.

The RPW paradigm isn't "Christian values", almost every civilization (not mudhut culture, actual "civilization"--civis, city) has been "patriarchal" for lack of a better word. And before anyone throws the "Mosuo" or any other hut tribe at me, I'm going to emphasize again the distinction between them and Civilization, stone wall cities, literacy, currency, advanced trade, division of labor etc. You will not find an advanced technological culture of its time that does have what we now call "traditional gender roles" and a "patriarchal" arrangement. That religions often enforce those values is most likely the accidental arrangement of beliefs that unleashes civilization, but has nothing necessarily to do with the modern atheist basis of those values, which is that they work to unleash surplus wealth, creativity and intra-male trust among normally "surplus" or beta males and are thus the fundamental building block of civilization.

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

The RPW paradigm isn't "Christian values", almost every civilization (not mudhut culture, actual "civilization"--civis, city) has been "patriarchal" for lack of a better word. And before anyone throws the "Mosuo" or any other hut tribe at me, I'm going to emphasize again the distinction between them and Civilization, stone wall cities, literacy, currency, advanced trade, division of labor etc.

So I guess the Egyptian, Minoan, Persian and Sarmatian civilizations were "mud hut tribes"?

You will not find an advanced technological culture of its time that does have what we now call "traditional gender roles" and a "patriarchal" arrangement.

And yet even in the ultra-patriarchial Middle East you had an entire class of free, unmarried females who were well educated, owned property, and were more influential and powerful than the majority of the male population.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Can you provide me something to read that indicates these civilizations didn't have male led family structures but were matriarchal? I may be 100% wrong and I'm not well versed in modern feminist versions of history, but I'm unaware of these civilizations being "matriarchal"

Certainly Egypt in the period of building monuments and civilization was not matriarchal. Is the myth of the Sarmatian Amazons now considered true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Archaeology nothing in here about matriarchal families or values?

The Minoans may have had a goddess cult, like say THE CATHOLICS, but how is this evidence they were a matriarchal civilization run by women without patriarchal family values? Many of the most patriarchal societies in history had both goddess cults and female priesthoods for them, tells us nothing of their family structure

Some discussion of the myth of matriarchal prehistory

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Can you provide me something to read that indicates these civilizations didn't have male led family structures but were matriarchal? I may be 100% wrong and I'm not well versed in modern feminist versions of history, but I'm unaware of these civilizations being "matriarchal"

First of all, what kind of household you are talking about when you talk about "male led family structures"? Because there is a load of difference between e.g. Greek kyriarchy, which literally required a man at the top to function at all, Mesopotamian or Sarmatian households, which were often patriarchial but allowed for female heads if the eldest male was absent or dead, and ancient Egyptian households that were largely egalitarian.

Second of all, you are excluding the middle between patriarchy and matriarchy, which is an egalitarian family structure not dominated by a single head of the household.

The Minoans may have had a goddess cult, like say THE CATHOLICS

Catholic Christians do not consider the Virgin Mary as a goddess, so your supposed comparison is invalid anyway.

You'll actually see that most civilizations that had significant female divine figures also allowed for women in positions of power and influence, even the nominally "patriarchial" ones like Babylonia (where the female priesthood owned substantial property and was considered politically just as powerful as its male counterpart, if not moreso due to the nature of Babylonian religion).

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Can you please provide me some evidence these civilizations had matriarchal vs patriarchal structures and values? I couldn't find any. Particularly this "ancient Egyptian households that were largely egalitarian." Where can I find something corroborating this statement?

You appear to be saying these civilizations were pretty much NOT "matriarchal" now. The truth of the matter is that "patriarchy" IS civilization. Even if you can find one or two "matriarchal" civilizations, which I don't believe you can, they don't prove anything but being the short lived exception to the rule. Matriarchy yields West Africa and the Mosuo, patriarchy yields Rome and Victorian England.

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Again you seem to hung up on this idea that a society has to be either 100% patriarchial, or absolutely matriarchial, and since there are no absolutely matriarchial civilizations they must all be absolute patriarchies.

It's called "the fallacy of the excluded middle". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

So, that's a "no" as to providing me even a child's middle school paper showing that these civilizations were actually as you say they are? At no point did i say they were "absolute patriarchies", you made that part up. Women having a few more rights in some cultures vs other cultures doesn't negate that a culture is base don patriarchal values, which is what i said, not Absolute Patriarchy. Male headed families, Male dominated power structures, Father head of the household and founder of lineage, cultural enforcement female sexual continence, these are some "patriarchal values". That, say, prostitution might exist in a culture based on "patriarchal values", thereby providing a space for female sexual INcontinence wouldn't negate the fact that the culture is based in patriarchal values, nor does women being allowed to own property, or any one or two instances of female "rights".

edit: The initially matriarchal character of the Sarmatian culture (eg, women warriors before marriage) gradually disappeared as the tribes became more organized, the political power of the generals grew, and new military tactics, armor, weapons, and riding equipment (metal stirrups) were introduced. The Sarmatians' cult of the sword and fire was reflected in their art, jewelry, and metal ornamentation of armor and weapons. Sarmatian archeological sites in Ukraine include the Sokolova Mohyla, Nohaichynskyi kurhan, and other kurhans.

Right, tribes can be "matriarchal", civilization is "patriarchal"

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Male headed families, Male dominated power structures, Father head of the household and founder of lineage, cultural enforcement female sexual continence, these are some "patriarchal values".

And as I said before, these are not universal even among societies that you are claiming are "patriarchial".

The Mesopotamian priesthood (which is functionally identical with modern middle management) was mixed gender, with women occupying top positions all the way from the Sumerian era to the Neobabylonian one, and priestesses were sexually autonomous (though often barred from regular marriage).

That does not mean Mesopotamia wasn't patriarchial in nature, but your claim that females were relegated to subservient roles in all forms of "civilization" is a faulty one.

Your claim that the Sarmatians were not a civilization during their egalitarian era is just circular reasoning. Your definition of "civilization" excludes female autonomy therefore any positions of autonomy are proof that a culture is not yet "civilized".

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are really bad at this.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

The bolded description of the Sarmatians was cut and paste from a website on the history of the Ukraine, I forgot to include the link http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\S\A\Sarmatians.htm

My definition of civilization is: walled or at least stone cities, currency, literacy, private property, a government, division of labor and laws as opposed to "customs". No where in that does female autonomy figure at all, you made that up and put it in my argument when it was never there. Even my description of patriarchal values lacked mention of "female autonomy". Traditional Judaism is extremely patriarchal yet Jewish women always worked, had the right to divorce and the right to handle and hold money, for example. If you read the Old Testament description of the "Eshet Chayil" or "virtuous woman" it is full of praises of her business acumen, economic activity and thrift in the purchase of a plot of land. Was Biblical Judaism not "patriarchal"? The Old Testament contains at least one female Leader, Deborah, and two female heros who killed the enemy by deception, Judith and Yael, Does that mean it was matriarchal?

Your made-up feminist stretch history attempts to assert women into the history of civilization (as opposed to culture) for the express reason that feminist and matriarchal values make civilization impossible and there's no other explanation for the near universal conjunction of patriarchal values and civilization.

You have done nothing but construct strawmen of my argument instead or asking for clarification since the outset of this argument.

Female autonomy of some level is neither a matriarchy nor matriarchal values, nor is the existence of female priests to female goddesses or even having a queen

It cannot be rationally argued, for example, that British culture is "matriarchal" in values because it allows for queens or because women were able to own taverns or family businesses at different point. Nor could it be rationally argued that Catholicism is "matriarchal" because it has so many revered female saints and an extreme worship of the Mother of God and that it has a caste of holy women called "nuns".

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Even my description of patriarchal values lacked mention of "female autonomy".

Your definition of patriarchial values goes like this:

Male headed families, Male dominated power structures, Father head of the household and founder of lineage, cultural enforcement female sexual continence

As I said, Mesopotamia had significant female participation in its power structures, and female sexual continence was not universally enforced. So it lacks two key elements of what you consider "patriarchial".

Likewise, it's not clear whether ancient Egypt recognized males as the heads of families at all, many sources say that the household was shared and/or controlled collectively by husband and wife. Again, a key element of your "patriarchy" is missing there.

So when you claim that all civilizations were "patriarchies" you aren't actually talking about patriarchy by your own definition of the term. I suggest you either revise your definition of "patriarchy", or declare your claim refuted.

Female autonomy of some level is neither a matriarchy nor matriarchal values

And I have never claimed that it is. The whole matriarchy angle has always been your strawman argument.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]turboslut2000Plum Delicious!6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha, way to weasel out of answering. She fully "understands" what you are saying, and what you are saying is that you are unable to back up your incorrect claims.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So I guess the Egyptian, Minoan, Persian and Sarmatian civilizations were "mud hut tribes"?

This was your first snarky argument against what I said, I have since SOLELY BEEN TRYING to get you to give me something to read that shows me these civilizations were as you say, because HEY, maybe I'm WRONG. It's a simple request that requires no responses but a LINK.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, no evidence you can point me to that these "civilizations" were as you describe them?

I just posited the exact opposite of a binary btw, you made up the binary part with your absolute patriarchy strawman.

[–]TUKINDZRedish, Kinda Blueish Purple Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't hold your breath. Silence is all you need.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am a Christian RPW.

[–]berryokt0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Im Gorean. Its a philosophy that explores the natural truth and biological reasons to explain human behavior. it is male dominance, female submission

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It can be both!

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter