Why not support patriarchy?

[Anonymous No.15048906]

We are men: is it not in our best interests to support a society where men rule?
Our feminists suppose that patriarchy harms men because it give us strict gender roles - men are not allowed to cry, not allowed to show emotion, not encouraged to study or produce art, &c. But the slightest knowledge of history that all this is absolutely compatible with the most patriarchal societies - or even especially compatible with patriarchy. Consider the men of the Renaissance, who in all respects were harsher towards their women, were also more prone to weeping or emotion, and great regard for artists.
>This readiness of shedding tears contrasts strongly with the external stoicism of modern civilization; but it is true to Arab character, and Easterns, like the heroes of Homer and Italians of Boccacio, are not ashamed of what we look upon as the result of feminine hysteria — “a good cry.”
So if patriarchy can peacefully coexist with gender roles that allow us to express ourselves, what reason is there to oppose it? It seems to be, in all its aspects, wholly beneficial to men.

[Anonymous No.15048974]

>>15048906
The real redpill is that it's beneficial to women too, and children too.
Patriarchy is the natural state of mankind.

[Anonymous No.15049074]

>>15048974
Prove it

[Anonymous No.15049108]

>>15048906
>We are men: is it not in our best interests to support a society where men rule?
It's just that 50% of all humans are women

[Anonymous No.15049115]

>>15049074
No

[Anonymous No.15049152]

>>15049108
Not on this board

[Anonymous No.15049173]

Man is enemy to man.

[Anonymous No.15049311]

>>15048906
Its not a conversation worth having, on either side of it. Dont be such a faggot, dont be offended by females who think they can ride their gender to the top of their own hierarchy and equally fuck anyone who thinks about it rather than does it

[Anonymous No.15049394]

>>15049311
Why not? I think one should consider what form of governance is most advantageous for him, just a pragmatic question

[Anonymous No.15049413]

>>15049394
You're off topic.

[Anonymous No.15049454]

>>15048906
No civilization emerges without patriarchy, and no civilization has ever emerged from matriarchy.

Matriarchycucks should be sent to the matriarchal african villages where niggers are yet to invent the wheel among other unimportant things.

[Anonymous No.15049574]

>conveniently ignoring that a very large part of Our cultural perspective on love and affection was developed through centuries and centuries of opposition to overly strict social norms.
The concept of love the west developed was often outside (if not in clear opposition) to the concept of marriage. Unhappy marriages and inceldom were always a thing, even moreso than now, and the sensible artists you talk about never considered their wives in the slightiest. The love of Lancelot and Guinevere was pure because it was adulterous and therefore truly free. Dante had a wife that he didn't consider in the slightiest, and in the Inferno he weeps for Paolo and Francesca (and on the side wrote very rapey erotic poems to some random florentine slut that didn't give him coochie). An overwhelming amount of romantic-age and modern day pop literature involve badly assorted marriages. Bringing arts into the argument shows very clearly that a more relaxed social norm can bring to more fullfilling relationships. If your argument for patriarchy is having right to a professional maid at your perpetual service no matter of her feelings to you once you get married well I don't have much against it, that looks pretty rad.

[Anonymous No.15049617]

Patriarchy is understaffed, so many simps

[Anonymous No.15049681]

>>15049574
Good point, but doesn't this just prove that this romantic love can exist alongside strict norms? Or even that, in rebellion, it only gains in intensity? This is hardly a reason to throw away our privileges.
>Bringing arts into the argument shows very clearly that a more relaxed social norm can bring to more fullfilling relationships
On the contrary, the kind of romantic idealism you describe is in decline, even with our relaxed norms - I don't think it's fair to establish a connection between them.

[Anonymous No.15049807]

>>15049681
What you describe I would call "the old geezer's conundrum". Old grumpy men that spend their day at cheap bars complain about technology and modern commodities claiming that hardships made life more worth living. Is the struggle better than comfyness? Personally I think that sysyphus would have been happier with the large ass boulder, but more important people than me disagree. Honestly anon I think that the truth is that the very soft patriarchy we have now brings the best of both worlds. Socially and sexually us men still enjoy a more active role (although in a less nuanced way than in the past), a role that the vast majority of women are still willing to accept because in many ways passivity is more comfortable and sustainable, as long of course as it isn't oppressive; also us men don't have to repress ourself in the strict role of the father-master figure tasked with the hard job of repressing other human beings as well. I sympathize with incels a lot in many aspects but honestly I find the idea that having direct power over women could bring them happiness extremely naive.

[Anonymous No.15050087]

>>15049074

[Anonymous No.15050135]

>>15050087
Assertions about the "natural order" of the world demand proof

[Anonymous No.15050223]

>>15050135
Men are obviously in the "hall of fame" for every societal area, every discipline, and every realm within history. They are naturally in charge or have engineered control. You have to prove this has been not beneficial to women and children.

[Anonymous No.15050272]

>>15049108
Women are irrational and emotional humans who rarely have exceptional intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15050333]

>>15050223
Because women were denied education, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15050360]

>>15048906
Strong men know we already live in a patriarchy which favors them, only weak men are blind to the fact and thus scuddle together like sheep on places like this one, voicing their frustration about the feminist boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.15050364]

>>15050333
>he thinks that women would have done better by being given the chance to learn literally anything rather than letting men handle that
>he thinks that modern education is a gift
>he thinks that women are better off given the responsibilties you get when you have an education, leading to them eventually destroying the institutes that men built that created the necessary excess of resources required to offer high level education
>he doesnt see the irony

[Anonymous No.15050451]

>>15049074
I can, but I'm too tired atm, I will give you the gist of it
Patriarchal
Hominids and apes
Paleolithic humans

""Matriarchal" (with men still on the top)
Some overpopulated neolithic villages

Patriarchal
Every culture in its early form

""Matriarchal"" (with men still ruling)
Collapsing society (indus valley, Han china, western civilization of today)

True matriarchies or even true egalitarian societies never existed. They are not even possible theoretically, they are an oxymoron.

Use the wolf/dog model to study this.
Humans are very similar to wolves socially, that's why they are the first animal that got domesicated.
In the wild the so called "alpha male" is simply the grandfather. Wolf packs are virtually identhical to human tribes.
Note that the alpha/beta experiment obly happened on wolves and dogs in captivity, because wolves in the wild don't behave this way.
Note that the we have 17 female ancestors for every male ancestor in the neolithic, while in the paleolithic the ratio was 1/1.
Note the difference in skeletons between the paleolithic and the neolithic, the lowr status, the symptom of high cortisol, malnutrition, overpopulation, lower life expectancy.
Note that in the last five years life expectancy started dropping drammatically in the western world.
Every human being is healthier, happier and even has more freedom under patriarchy, which is a misnomer anyway, since it's simply the natural state of human beings that both men and women instinctively need and desire.