Long post but some of you may find it of interest.

In the comments to the recent Mother Jones hit piece on the MRM, an usually candid and almost downright fair feminist stated that she "agreed" that "women held up half the sky" under "patriarchy."

The more I hear feminists complain about ridiculously trivial issues like "manspreading" and catcalling; demanding that they be spared hurt feelings even as men are dropping like flies in the workplace and wars; shuddering at the "male gaze"; insisting on safety at all costs (so long as the costs are borne by men); encouraging policies whereby the fruits of male labour are redistributed to females; arguing on behalf of "men protecting women from rapists"; shunning any sense of personal responsibility; and so on; the more I'm starting to wonder whether women themselves didn't -- in the distant past -- CREATE what feminists term "patriarchy."

More and more people are recognizing that feminism is coming "full circle," retreating to its Victorian roots. In only a few decades we have gone from "sexual liberation" to "there are rapists everywhere! Protect me daddy!"

A few "sexual liberationists" from the 60's have even condemned this trend. For example, Joanne Wypijewski, writing in The Nation:

"Sex, or fear of it, has been almost as important in the construction of this nightmare state as racism. Just as the legal gains of the civil rights movement were blunted by LBJ’s Safe Streets Act and the incipient “war on drugs,” the sexual revolution and women’s liberation were short-circuited by serial sex panics, police power in loco mariti, Victims’ Rights as a mask for vengeance and the conception of the Sex Offender as a new, utterly damnable category of human being."

"Clinton gave his violence program a twist of identity politics—enhanced penalties for violence against women, hate as an actionable emotion, child protection as a blanket for censorship and repression—but those who backed him were not simply gulled. For years before—and each side for its own reasons—some liberals had made common cause with some conservatives on policing sex. “Carceral feminists,” the subject of a fair amount of recent talk and scholarship on the roots of anti-trafficking campaigns, is an unlovely phrase, but it usefully denotes a social force that elided personal power with state power, eschewed the project of liberation—the goal of a radically different set of power relations—and took as its armor the victim’s mantle."

http://www.thenation.com/article/181569/how-feminists-and-liberals-enabled-modern-police-state

The UVA controversy is instructive. Feminists claim to be terrified of predatory males engaged in an orgy of rape. It's a fictitious phenemonon engendered by bogus statistics, but average women are apparently suffering intense fear that they will be raped by a man in their lifetimes. What does society do? It tries to accommodate these fears by fundamentally altering our entire legal system -- no more "innocent until proven guilty."

The problem is that these measures can't go on forever. The desire on behalf of men to achieve some degree of freedom, to be fairly compensated for their labor, and to be treated with respect, is equal to that of women; arguably at least, men are less interested in safety than women, and more interested in freedom; this is not a sleight against women -- women are indeed more important from an evolutionary/biological POV, so it would make sense that women place a higher premium on safety, and that men likewise have an instinctual compulsion to protect women.

Christopher Hitchens discussed this in his article on women and humour:

"Men are overawed, not to say terrified, by the ability of women to produce babies. (Asked by a lady intellectual to summarize the differences between the sexes, another bishop responded, "Madam, I cannot conceive.") It gives women an unchallengeable authority. And one of the earliest origins of humor that we know about is its role in the mockery of authority. Irony itself has been called "the glory of slaves." So you could argue that when men get together to be funny and do not expect women to be there, or in on the joke, they are really playing truant and implicitly conceding who is really the boss."

What about restrictions on female clothing and male chaperones? Feminists assumed that these measures were and are undertaken on behalf of "patriarchy," which according to their theories means that it benefits men. Okay men -- show of hands. How many of you would like to outlaw the bikini? What about mini skirts? Anyone?

It seems more plausible to me that men in power have passed these restrictions -- not due to a desire to privilege men -- but rather as a means of responding to constant complaints by women. If even "strong, empowered" feminists can't stop complaining about the frightening "male gaze," and seem to be terrified of men making passes at them in elevators, what was the case five thousand years ago?

One of the problems with attempting to actually quantify female power in history is that Historians have not been eager to focus on the issue. They have focussed on the "great events" -- wars, new technologies and so forth. This is well explained by "Lindy Beige", who is not an MRA but argues that women have actually held majority power throughout history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

Nevertheless, in the historical literature we find hints of the profound power of women. For example (and no I don't agree that women should have less rights than men -- this quote is merely illustrative), Samuel Johnson wrote, "Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little."

Or take this quote from 1600 AD by Moedsta Pozza (a woman), who wrote:

“Don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards, so that we can remain at home like the lady of the house directing their work and enjoying the profit of their labors? That, if you like, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than us — they need to be, so they can put up with the hard labor they must endure in our service.”

Or this (also from the excellent Gynocentrism website):

"At first it may seem an astonishing anomaly to see the wife dressed like a lady and the husband so basely that he often appears to be her servant or butler, but if we consider the matter properly, we find it reasonable because it is necessary for a woman, even if she is humble and low, to be ornamented in this way because of her natural dignity and excellence, and for the man to be less so, like a servant or beast born to serve her."

Doesn't sound like "male dominance" to me. At all.

To return to the original question -- we now know that males do not have an in group preference, and rather tend to cater to the whims of females. This makes perfect sense, since women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men compete for their affections. Even men of great power do so, though they have a much easier time of it, and -- in stark contrast to feminist ideology -- seem to be happy to throw working class men under the bus at every opportunity.

Some have even argued that society is a reflection of female desire. Men very often do what they do to please women -- and yes, that includes violent behaviour, which, though for most women is repugnant, is nevertheless often considered preferable to weakness. Time and time again, we find that women find "confidence" more attractive than just about any other characteristic. This also might help to explain why psychopathy wasn't rooted out of the gene pool a long time ago.

Feminists argue that male problems are caused by masculinity -- we should learn to be more like women, to cry more, to express our emotions better. Yet, ironically, studies have shown that women find such effusive displays unattractive. Men understand this, which is precisely why male stoicism is a thing in the first place. Conversely, men find vulnerability in women highly attractive.

"Study Finds that men like nice women, but not the other way around."

http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-men-nice-women-not-other-way-around-261269

This post is probably sounding a bit Red-Pillish at the moment, but rest assured that I do not subscribe to a simplistic "Alpha"/"Beta" worldview. In fact I'm egalitarian not only in my views on gender but economics/politics. The more inequality we have, the more these problems will manifest. But that's an argument for another day. My main point: to the extent that we have lived in "patriarchal" societies, not only have women held up "half the sky," but they may well have been the primary cause of "patriarchy" in the first place.