Raising boys to live in the coming matriarchy

Summary: Feminists are quite open about the new American they are building. As seen in this article. It’s a nation of weak men. They’re succeeding.

“It will require cultural trauma to derail the current fugue of insanity.”
— James Howard Kunstler, novelist and social critic. See Wikipedia and his website. Private communication, posted with his permission.

Aggressive girl and sad boy. Shutterstock 10800637.
Sergey Fedenko/Shutterstock.

Dalrock is one of the most perceptive analysts of the gender wars that I have found. We have been discussing the often baffling dynamics of this, perhaps the most important conflict of our time. Here is an edited transcript of one such conversation. We are cross-posting it.

Fourth wave feminism is women seeking superiority over men {details here}. Take a feminist’s speech and reverse the genders. If sounds sexist, then she is in the fourth wave. They are often quite open about it. Here’s a fun example, showing how far the idea has spread. The author understands the unpleasant message she gives men, so she makes clear statements about the Matriarchy along with assurances that it won’t be a matriarchy.

How To Prepare Our Sons for the Matriarchy” by Jenny Hoople at The Good Men Project.

“We must not leave our boys behind even as we raise up our girls.”
“The Matriarchy doesn’t mean women over men, it means strong women leading all of us in rebuilding a society …”

The accompanying photo (above) captures the nature of the article quite well. This is their Matriarchy: an aggressive girl and a sad subordinate boy.

Dalrock: That pic really does say it all. On the other side we have conservatives responding that weak men are screwing feminism up.

The “cuckservatives” are part of the problem. It is more accurate to say that weak men are screwing up society. I’ve wanted to write about this, but it’s too complex and I don’t understand it sufficiently. Here is how I see it, as best I can.

Great societies work hard to produce strong boys that become useful men (unlike feral men, who are strong but destructive). Instead modern America produces hordes of weak men. Withdrawal from dating and marriage is a natural response of weak men.

How did this happen? Disasters (excluding natural disasters) usually result from multiple and reinforcing errors. Feminists produce weak sons. Dads subservient or acquiescing to their feminist wives produce weak sons. Families too busy to raise sons, especially with few larger institutions doing so, produce weak sons. Single mothers produce weak sons. Feminist-dominated institutions – such as our schools, churches and youth groups – produce weak boys. Institutions that train boys to be strong, such as Boy Scouts and male-only sports programs, are under attack.

Worse, we’ve stopped raising girls. So they grow in accord with their core programming. What we thought was their natural state was in fact the result of intense indoctrination (e.g. pronatalism). So we get, as often seen in music videos, somewhat feral girls. Like feral men, they are disruptive to society. The combination is potentially lethal.

Dalrock: Right. The problem is not the observation, but the frame. The observation is accurate. The problem is the implicit desire to change men so that feminism will finally work. It can’t be done, and conservatives shouldn’t be trying to make feminism work anyway.

Like so much of your work, that’s a brutal but accurate observation. Obvious, once you point it out to us. It’s a sign of the ultimate victory when your opponents adopt your goals. It’s a commonplace in history.

It is imperative, imo, that we break the debate out of the current two channels: despair (Aquinas: “To commit a crime is to kill the soul, but to despair is to fall into hell.”) and MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way – fantasies of being Tarzan: Me strong & self-sufficient, live in jungle alone with my animal friends).

Dalrock: I’m in general agreement I think, but MGTOW men aren’t the problem, they are a logical reaction to the problem. I made an analogy a number of years ago regarding seats at a restaurant that ended up taking a life of its own. In a nutshell, I wish the MGTOW men well, and hope they have fulfilling lives. My focus isn’t on trying to convince them to come dine in the restaurant (marriage), but to find a way to make more seats available for them to do so.

Now we’re getting to the core of the situation. Under your prodding, this is becoming a bit clearer to me. You said that “MGTOW men aren’t the problem.” I fully agree, looking at this on an individual level. More broadly, men bailing on the current system will be (guessing) a major force blowing it down. But – again guessing – I think most are kidding themselves. I’ve seen a lot of this, by age 63, and imo GAME and MGTOW are the equivalent of Fantasy Football for most men. They can be played but not won in real life.

But young women aren’t the problem, either (neither side has much empathy for or understanding of the other – which is part of the problem). They’re doing as they have been told, acting on the values the Boomers and Gen X taught them. They are like young women playing at being Wonder Women (vainly seeking to have it all).

Both young men and women are on courses that will end badly for many of them. Their damaged lives are pushing the system to its destruction. But not, as often described, as collateral damage. More like involuntary sacrifices. I can’t think of the right metaphor for them.

That’s why I refer to this current debate – 4th wave feminism vs. GAME/MGTOW – as a doomed fight from which we must break free from. This is a common situation in history, in which societies fall into conflicts in which there can be no winners. But men can help put America on a better path. Expect a surprise end to the gender wars when men stand together.

Afterward: follow the discussion in the comments to this post at Dalrock’s website. They are intense and reveal much about the gender wars.


About Dalrock

He is a married man living with his wife and two kids in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. He is very interested in how the post feminist world impacts himself and his family, and uses his blog to explore these issues. See his website. Especially these posts about the gender wars.

For More Information

For fun see this post by Dalrock for more about the strong women and emasculated men writing at The Good Men Project: He almost had a masculine thought.

Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issuesabout feminismabout marriage, and especially these …

  1. Men find individual solutions.
  2. Modern dating: is the only winning move not to play?
  3. An easy fix to make marriages stronger and work better.
  4. Men standing together can end the gender wars.

Books rich with insights about modern women

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly (2018). She her on NBC News explaining “why we need to rethink the way we think about women’s anger, and how we can use it for social good.” See a brutal review of the book by James Howard Kunstler.

Why Women Should Rule the World by Dee Dee Myers (2008).

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women's Anger
Available at Amazon.
Why Women Should Rule the World
Available at Amazon.

30 thoughts on “Raising boys to live in the coming matriarchy”

  1. I am a Christian and try to see life through the spectacles of the word. Forgive the Christian speak…
    Genesis is a seminal work in that it has semen from which lives and thoughts are spawned.
    I wonder if Dalrock who espouses a Christian perspective has come across this in his thinking on relationships. One of the curses of the woman after the fall was: ‘Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.’ Gen 3:16; The desire of the woman for her husband is a mistranslation in that it conjures up an image of longing or lust.
    When this exact phrase is used in Genesis, sin is crouching at Cain’s door: ‘and unto thee shall be his desire’. Gen 4:7; I.e. sin is looking to attack and eat you like a hungry beast.
    We see that Paul the apostle is saying that the woman usurped Adam’s authority and headship and was open to deception. 1Co 2:14: Now in the fall the curse confirmed that this would be a permanent feature of male female relations.
    After the restoration under Christ, Paul still points back to Adam and Eve. Paul is saying that for ‘this’ reason he does not allow women to teach and have authority over men. It is not to silence the Corinthian women, this was not a cultural problem confined to a single area. This was an historical problem of usurped headship that is universally applicable. For this reason it cannot be consigned to the cultural dustbin.
    We may not like what it says but we can’t hide it behind a smoke screen by looking at the word silence, ignoring the fact that Paul is clear as to why he does not want women to teach. This is sufficient but the full article is avaliable here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/88yry8gnjmmwwlv/WOMEN%20SUBMISSION%20AND%20SILENCE.%20%28Markpc%27s%20conflicted%20copy%202017-06-08%29.docx?dl=0

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      It’s too off-topic for me to comment on. But that is standard fare for Dalrock and his readers. There are scores of posts discussing those passages. See the posts with the category “headship.” Or use Google to find specific mentions of those passages.

    2. Great point 7zander,

      As you note, the pattern is very old: Something in common.

      Did you see that the ESV was recently updated to correct the mistranslation in Genesis? A big win for Grudem.

      “We see that Paul the apostle is saying that the woman usurped Adam’s authority and headship and was open to deception. 1Co 2:14: Now in the fall the curse confirmed that this would be a permanent feature of male female relations. After the restoration under Christ, Paul still points back to Adam and Eve. Paul is saying that for ‘this’ reason he does not allow women to teach and have authority over men.”

      Ironically one of the men on the ESV translation committee who pushed through the recent correction is also responsible for corrupting how conservative Christians interpret 1 Tim 2:12. Now nearly all conservative Christians believe that Paul intended for women to preach, but only to other women. To arrive at this twisted logic they had to determine that when Paul said in verse 14:

      “14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

      That he was not saying women are more easily deceived but was merely pointing out that Adam was created first! As the inventors of the new feminist friendly doctrine themselves point out, assuming Paul wasn’t saying women are more easily deceived is essential to their new interpretation:

      “After all, does Paul care only that the women not teach men false doctrines? Does he not care that they not teach them to other women?”

      Interestingly, I have yet to come across a Christian who accepts their conclusion who also accepts the logic required to get there. Nearly everyone now supports women preaching to women, but no one accepts the premise that Paul wasn’t saying women are more easily deceived. More detail here: He knelt like a true gentleman.

      1. Thanks for the links… I had a great time wandering round your site.
        Now that the conversation has moved on I will answer you: to a large extent the ‘church’ has given up, accepting that the concepts of fidelity, honesty are desirable traits for Christians but in reality they are not compatible with the real world. Similarly, the old fashioned ideas that homosexuality is wrong, babies should not be hooked out of the womb; women stopped from preaching and teaching, interfere with women’s rights.
        The church apart from the archaic have moved on.
        What I have recently been studying is group responsibility and judgment. Modern Christians are individuals with individual rights and responsibilities. They don’t like the idea of Jeremiah suffering the same fate as the rest in Jerusalem even though he was the prophet trying to get them to repent and change. Laodicea and other churches mentioned at Rev 1:11 are just metaphors for us to look at and dismiss.
        The point I am trying to make is this: we have a responsibility to stand up and speak out on an individual basis, in our churches, clubs, forums and in our and cities. It is either this or to be judged along with those who are off the track.
        As usual I am probably far from the mark, I would be interested in your opinion.

    3. Calvin on this topic:

      He adds — what is closely allied to the office of teaching — and not to assume authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or authority. Yet it may be thought that there is no great force in this argument; because even prophets and teachers are subject to kings and to other magistrates. I reply, there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for gunaikokratia (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach.

      A Calvinist minister and I argued about this online a week ago. Modern Calvinist ministers like to say that Calvin was a “theocrat” who mingled civil government with sacred (church) government at times appealing to the laws and history of Old Testament Israel as examples of how Christian kings of the 1500s-1600s ought to rule. They say Calvin’s reasoning was invalid because he wasn’t able to reason from the New Testament and there is a big discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments on the topic of civil government: Israel was a true theocracy. Israel has been fulfilled in Christ.

      I say that we can learn some things from the Old Testament if we’re cautious and bear in mind that no modern governments were handed down from God in the same way that Israel’s government was given to Israel through Moses and later Samuel who annointed Saul. Thus, I think Calvin’s statement about women ruling holds today and is obvious both from Genesis and nature (natural law). There are exceptions (queens of England, queens of Ethiopia, female judges in the Old Testament), but the exceptions prove the rule that almost every society in history has been a patriarchy. Man was made first, then woman. Woman was made from man and for man. Aside from Genesis, we know from science (not SCIENCE!) that men are larger, stronger, more athletic, and think completely differently. The literary, scientific, and artistic accomplishments of women pale in comparison to men. These aren’t nice things to say but are true.

    4. Even those exceptions with Queens. They that marry in Christian religion. Since man is head of his wife. The husband takes the throne as King.

  2. Spend six months doing deadlifts, learning jiu jitsu, and eating steak. You’ll find those male snowflake feelings melt right away.

    These feminist creatures are Zarathustra’s parasites. Bitter, envious and jealous Tarantulas. “In all their lamentations soundeth vengeance, in all their eulogies is maleficence; and being judge seemeth to them bliss. But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!”

    Horatius was only one. With two to help him, defend western civilisation. “Now who will stand at either hand and hold the bridge with me.”

    Teach your kids to fight. Tarantula rules are made to be broken.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      That’s a statement of the counter-revolution. For more about this, see here.

      I suggest caution about using the story of Horatius. The equivalent today are stories about superheroes, motivating men to see themselves as Lone Rangers. In the real world, that’s the formula for losers.

      Rome won its battles due to the cohesion and organization of its men. While stories of individual heroism were popular for the people at home (esp women and kids), legionnaires considered them folly. Victory came from standing together and following their leaders. As in Suetonius’ speech to his legions in Britain (60 AD), 10 thousand men facing an army of 230 thousand.

      “Ignore the racket made by these savages. There are more women than men in their ranks. …We’ve beaten them before and when they see our weapons and feel our spirit, they’ll crack. Stick together. Throw the javelins, then push forward: knock them down with your shields and finish them off with your swords. Forget about plunder. Just win and you’ll have everything.”

      They took 400 casualties and inflicted 80 thousand, routing their foes.

      Our social conflict is not a war. It is largely spiritual and moral. But the many of the same principles apply.

    2. Interesting links Larry. Horatius had a small team. One of Edmund Burke’s “little platoons”: Spurius Latius and Herminius (sp?). Roger Scruton calls the small clubs, the “genius of Western Civilisation”. To start a thing you need someone to start it. But if too many join your club, you get to bind up the fasces and you get another iteration of the fascist “state”. Start a small club. Everyone gets to be awesome at something in a small town, a small club. But, if you want peace, prepare for war.

  3. Larry,

    The problem isnt marriage , it is that divorce is so damn expensive, psychologically and Financially.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Would making divorce cheaper and easier (psychologically) fix the family? I doubt it.

      The latter probably isn’t possible without radical changes to marriage that make it something quite different.

  4. ” {But men can help put America on a better path. Expect a surprise end to the gender wars when men stand together.}”

    These two thoughts as expressed are incomplete. In order to avoid this statement: This is a common situation in history, in which societies fall into conflicts in which there can be no winners; We need to add “and women join them” to the top quote.

    We don’t need a win for one sex or the other; we need human society and its children to win. IMO.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      You misunderstood the text. The first sentence refers to who fixes the situation: “men standing together.” It is not PC – e.g., calling for a rainbow multi-gender coalition of people singing Kimbaya. We’re past the point where there are nice solutions.

      The second sentence refers to the result: the fix means that society works better, and there is no winners.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      These are matters on the very cutting edge of the known, made more difficult to understand by the chaff thrown up by the media. Difficult to understand, esp at first contact.

  5. Jan 14, 2012 Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women – Aaron Russo

    The REAL reasons for feminism which was funded and pushed by the Rockefellers and the CIA for very nefarious reasons, which includes being part of their central banking worldwide takeover to help set up the New World Order. The full interview is located in the show notes in this very link.


    1. Thank you Brian!

      Why do I hate these “revelations?”
      (1) I told you so! Just by observing the development, reading between lines blah, blah; but then I used the Div.et Imp. paradigm, while I should use more fitting analogy: Balkanization
      (2) The reach of the ‘revelation’ shows the reality is much blunter and deeper than I originally thought (old Rockies and Ford and CIA… ouch!)

      A juicier version: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2012/02/women-white-miller-woman-young-2

      In general, I found that digging into details of some “last outposts” of noble causes and genuine spontaneity usually ends in a fiasco toward the very opposite and disillusion!

  6. Coming matriarchy? Sorry to be the barer of bad news, but its already here. As soon as you give them political power its game over.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “but its already here.”

      Calling our current system a matriarchy is a wild exaggeration. To mention the obvious, most senior positions in business are held by men. That doesn’t mean it is a patriarchy – women are politically powerful and hold much of the wealth – but it is incompatible with a matriarchy.

      To get out of this hole, we have to see the world clearly.

  7. Sometimes I get angry on myself because I get angry over some grown children’s (surprise! NOT a man child) noise. The most arrogant people are those who are handed a great power without any effort, people who don’t really deserve it. There is no propaganda that is very clearly being sold to the society in the vast extent of a delusion named “women’s rights”. And know this! Politicians don’t follow morality. They follow what benefits them the most and it is actually working. Without empowering women they can’t control men easily. I’m not a religious person but this resembles so much to what Satan did to deceive Adam.

    So you can bark all you want and dream as much as you can. Women can’t survive a day without men. Maybe men can’t reproduce without women (which women also can’t without men), but men don’t necessarily need women to survive. So I recommend you consider constantly stepping on the hand that feeds you Ms. grown kid!

  8. Ahahaha! Forget about that! You’re too coward to publish comments without censorship! Talk me about how you’re going to rule (and collapse) the world! lol

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      (1) “You’re too coward to publish comments without censorship!”

      To what are you referring? There is nothing in these comments even remotely like “censorship.” Your comment gives no examples.

      To reply to a comment, go to the first comment in the thread. Hit the reply button.

      (2) “Talk me about how you’re going to rule (and collapse) the world!”

      That makes even less sense than your first sentence.

  9. I am MGTOW and while I think Dalrock’s “restaurant” analogy is good but I don’t think it goes far enough. To those of us on the sidelines being excoriated to marry the happily marrieds seem like those who have won the lottery asking the poor: Why don’t you become rich! Its great all you have to do is buy the winning lottery ticket!” Its actually even a little insulting. If I knew how to buy the winning lottery ticket, or find a faithful honest woman to marry, I would have done so by now.

    The second point I would like to add is that marriage rates may be seem even more skewed depending on your demographic position. As an atheist (former liberal) I don’t know too many conservative types and hence the number of happily married people I know if probably even less than average. I can count on one hand all the people I know who are HAPPILY married and when you put it in that perspective my lottery analogy is not that far off…

    1. You are right about the skewed demographic… I tell my sons if you want a cheating whore as a wife, go looking in a brothel. This is obviously an extreme but it demonstrates what you are speaking about. If you want a decent woman look where there is a demonstration of faith, fidelity; where women respect their elders, parents and family and you stand a better chance.

  10. Take a note from Karen. And you wonder why men are gong MGTOW?

    I’ve been married 30 years with grown children but in today’s social political environment where you could be changed with sexual harassment for whatever reason or be forcibly estranged by the law from seeing your kids just because the wife wasn’t feeling fulfilled in her marriage or just because she found s new honey. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Women file for divorce 80% to men’s 20%. It logical for young men to weig their risks and decline a relationship.


    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      I couldn’t get thu 2 minutes of her s l o w and simple speech. I don’t know what Peterson says, but the 30 second opening wasn’t helpful. On the other hand, I don’t watch these videos.

      What did you get from this.

  11. Its not just USA I think its most western countries.

    I’m a 50+ woman who has discussed this problem and we are curious. Theres a huge disproportionate increase in the number of younger women who have a strong interest in dominant men they need to be obey or face punishment like bare bottom slapping (not necc. linked to sex). We used to get 2-3 new members most years but the number of women wanting to join last year exceeded 400+. There is no $ involved, just interest. We think its coz we are so unsatisfied in our “feminist” lives.

    We’ve reached out to many other groups (at the last count 37 countries) with the same disproportionate increases and some with much more. it is getting so difficult to find a true “alpha” male that sharing is becoming the only practical way forward. We need more “real men”, not violent, cruel rapist wifebeaters but firm, dominant and loving – who will not let their maleness be subdued by misguided females!!

    1. Kajira,

      “Its not just USA I think its most western countries”

      Very true. As shown by the OECD survey I cited, and many similar surveys in other nations.

      “We think its coz we are so unsatisfied in our “feminist” lives.”

      My guess (guess! and it’s a common one) is that the War on Boys has produced a population of beta guys and few alphas. Girls yearn for the alphas – more than the 15 minutes most are willing to give them (even if they treat girls badly) – and tend to despise their beta orbiters. Perhaps (more guessing) that is why so many women advocate opening the borders to men from failed states – who have grown strong in their Darwinian environments.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: