Those who claim “women civilize men”, or its semantic counterpart “marriage [to a woman] civilizes men”, are often guilty of two errors: the first is gross gynocentrism stemming from reflexive pedestalization of the feminine. Women, while central to the family by biological design, possess few overarching civilizing qualities of their own. On the contrary, a cursory look at family units and communities devoid of adult males in leadership positions reveals that the feminine in charge and in isolation is quite unable to sustain a complex civilization. In fact, to analyze the social patterns of such communities is to be transported back in time to humanity’s prehistory; it takes little imagination to see that the matriarchal social patterns of the urban ghetto are little more than mud huts gussied up with brick and mortar–the cultural residue of the once-present patriarchal civilization–and that industry and industriousness has been replaced with hunting and gathering.
The second error is mistaking the symptom for the cause. While it is true that married men are more productive than singletons and also generally behave in what can be objectively judged as more socially constructive ways, it is not the presence of women per se that causes men to be more productive or be better behaved. Rather, it is the social institution of patriarchal marriage (marriage 1.0, or simply ‘marriage’) that does so, for marriage, properly constituted and defended, provides a fellow assurance that the children in his house are indeed his, provides a vehicle through which his need for sexual release is satisfied, and encourages him to channel his excess energies toward himself, his family, and his community. In short, the marriage institution gives him a reason to invest beyond himself. (Marriage also instills socially constructive behaviors that render girls capable of functioning positively within a society, and also accrues many benefits to women that would be absent otherwise, one of which is safety/security. Needless to say there are many other benefits due women from her upholding her role in marriage that I will not address in today’s column.)
These popular but still erroneous sayings honor that which does not deserve, and gives short shrift–and therefore obscures from the conventional wisdom–to that which is responsible for and transmits civilization…the masculine. It is men who bequeath the gift of civilization to women and their children, men whose socially constructed and biologically unnecessary roles serve to socialize women, boys, girls, and other men to exist in a society for the benefit of all. So we men have something to celebrate, for our voluntary participation in society and subordination of our desires toward the good of our families and society in general is the literal key to civilization. Moreover, where one sees men focusing on gratifying their own wants first and avoiding entanglements with family is a society operating at much less than full capacity and is most certainly in decline.
But I wish to be careful here and not overstate the male power to create and instill civilization for, as it takes two to tango, the female must also participate. Thus for civilization to work, the feminine must accept the limits to autonomy placed upon it. But women must more than just participate, they must enthusiastically do so. For just as a mother is the center of the family, women are the center of a civilization, and where they go, the civilization goes. In other words, women are a civilization’s center of gravity, defined by Clausewitz as
the hub of all power and movement upon which everything depends
Clausewitz encouraged practitioners of war to attack the enemy’s center(s) of gravity, for attacks there will have disproportionate effects and may very well paralyze the enemy and his ability or will to resist.
With this women-are-society’s-center-of-gravity conceptualization in mind, we see this fact acknowledged and reinforced repeatedly throughout history. The first example I use in the Garden, where Lucifer, knowing that attempting to convince Adam to violate the Law would be futile, focused his efforts instead on the more vulnerable and more important Eve. Why more important? Well, Lucifer knew that if he went after Eve and succeeded, not only would he enjoy a higher probability of success, but that success would be magnified well beyond that had he attacked Adam and succeeded. For Eve had influence disproportionate to her station in the created order. Lucifer corrupted her, and she drug Adam, the head of the First Family, with her into the Fall.
The second example is far more recent, and is actually four: the leaders of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China all deliberately and successfully courted German, Italian, Russian, and Chinese women in their revolutions. For they knew that while some German, Italian, Russian, and Chinese men supported them, far more men opposed their authoritarian reforms. Yet by promising more power, influence, and authority to women in their future socialist utopias, these leaders surfed to power on the wave generated by Eve’s Curse.
That these four radical left wing dictators did so was no accident; in fact, they were simply following the Marxist playbook, which reads:
Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included).
Thus history suggests that the key to any revolution isn’t us men. While we are important, and can bring a lot of force and manpower to bear, we require at least the grudging cooperation of the 51% majority, who, as mothers and wives, drag the main body of the civilization with them.
Many of us here at The Spearhead spend our time thinking of ways to counter the sexual revolution, restore patriarchal civilization, and re-enfranchise beta, delta, gamma, and omega men back into society. However, while it is good for us men to cuss and discuss the options for accomplishing this revolution amongst ourselves, we must consider ways and means to convince a sufficient number of women that our cause will be of greater benefit to them in the long run than the feminist’s cause. That is, if we are to succeed in reversing the Marxist takeover of our families, homes, and society.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at
the blog The Elusive Wapiti.
