Why do a lot of women want to twist everything to a discussion of patriarchy?

[Anonymous No.23018135]

As the title says. Why do so many women insert an analysis of "patriarchy" even in topics where such a thing is completely out
of the blue. Example:

"Over they years I have come to understand that God(dess) and magic are not dark and light, good and evil. This is a myth of patriarchy, to keep us (especially women) from direct engagement with the power of nature and the magic inherent in our own souls."

Is this not just patriarchy shoehorned in between the discussion of majority religions and minority religions? I don't get why they do this.

[Anonymous No.23018147]

>>23018135
Its the woman's version of DA JOOZ DID IT

[Anonymous No.23018151]

>>23018147
What is the jews version of DA JOOZ DID IT?

[Anonymous No.23018155]

>>23018151
Lots of jews are against the cabal

[Anonymous No.23018177]

>>23018151
>What is the jews version of DA JOOZ DID IT?
Currently its DA WHITES DID IT.

[Anonymous No.23018221]

>>23018177
Indeed except the whites are way farther down this road than jews. As if our generation (Y) wasn't endowed with feminist ideals before turning to the wisdom of the Gigachad. Why ? Because we realized women's accusatory frenzy is a bottomless pit. And the same is true for race matters. We were all antiracists before wokism popped up. The problem is not that whites parades with blacks asking for justice, or even that they kiss their boots. The problems lies in the fact after this done, the negro crowd will suddenly turn on you and chant "kill all whites" or the guy whom you kissed the boots will refuse to shake your hand afterwards. Ditto for feminism.

I mean look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/U3F-mJ0R9i4

There are retards with bad faith who think this guy is racist when he's applying what's asked of him by wokism. And this is how this goes: 1°) aknowledge you're racist 2°) pay the price for admitting it. No pardon for you, only crucifixion.

Meanwhile the jews are denying there is even a jewish over-representation in the institutions of the West, when the reality is that they are at the origin of wokism and feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminists_by_religion

[Anonymous No.23018283]

>>23018135
>Is this not just patriarchy shoehorned in between the discussion of majority religions and minority religions?
When the majority religion is patriarchal it makes sense

[Anonymous No.23018296]

>>23018135
women naturally like to shit test men, since we've removed our control on them they still have nothing original to speak of any more but their relation to men.

[Anonymous No.23018338]

There’s this idea of the religious or metaphysical canopy from this guy Peter Berger. Basically, the claim is that Western people, and people in general really, were and have to be unified by a common understanding of the world which comes from a top down orientation which is essentially religious. Although the religion would’ve changed, you would’ve found this to be case in Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy alike. The distinguishing feature of modernity is plastering over the metaphysical canopy. This was Augusto del Noce’s claim as well. Modernity is not actually replacing or even rejecting religious claims. It’s basically just refusing to deal with religious questions. The rejection is not rejection of the claims so much as rejection of entertaining the claims. So modernity sees this fracturing of the unified body and over time, people slowly fall away into their own little self-contained surrogate metaphysics. There have been several attempts to offer up a unifying one - communism, national socialism, scientifism. Feminism is merely one of these surrogate metaphysics. In the exact same way that Marxists like Mark Fisher look at the world and see nothing but horrifying capital everywhere, feminists look at the world and see patriarchy everywhere. It’s the panacea explanation for everything. Why are things are the way they are? Because of the patriarchy. What should we do? We should overcome the patriarchy. These are surrogate quasi-religious views, and in the case of feminism it’s simply easy for them to latch on to and frankly desirable, because it gives a pass to exercise the will and reach for power, which is what all of these surrogate views are about. In communism, the workers reach for power. In feminism, the women reach for power. In either case, it’s this anti-traditional impulse to not only overcome the problems of abandoning the old religious questions, but to replace it entirely. That is the impulse at work here.

[Anonymous No.23018383]

>>23018338
Thank you for such an informative answer...
I've never read Peter Berger's or Augusto del Noce's work but this definitely makes me curious.

I guess in essence we have never really lost this "reach for power" they all ended up being the same thing with a different paint coat. But the way different religions function in comparison feels similar.

I wonder if we'll ever get beyond the dynamic of master versus slave.

[Anonymous No.23018414]

>>23018151
Antisemitism

[Anonymous No.23018448]

>>23018135
It's codeword for
>I want to become a single 40 year old cat lady
which is what happens to every woman that has ever unironically talked about "the patriarchy."

[Anonymous No.23018608]

>>23018151
Amalek

[Anonymous No.23019344]

Since is a topic a woman has to deal with it any day.

[Anonymous No.23019479]

>>23018135
Every ideology blames some aspect of the world on some singular entity and hyper-fixates on this. It's the same thing with the early American founding fathers and their obsession with monarchy and tyranny. When you're establishing a new social order it takes some preoccupation.

[Anonymous No.23019495]

>>23018383
It’s not a master vs slave dynamic per se. It’s rather that humans naturally look for power, but power for power’s sake is a religious surrogate. A religious person might ask “to what end do I wield power” while the modern person replies “power itself is the end”. That is feminism in a nutshell. You really get a sense of this if you talk to young women about abortion. They will pretty often admit that it boils down to having power over men by having the right to terminate their offspring. This impulse to power exists in Western people to almost an insane degree. Even the quickness with which you resorted to the master-slave dynamic illustrates it. It’s not your fault. You can’t be any other way. But it just highlights how quick we are to consider the world in terms of power dynamics, and if power dynamics aren’t subordinate to some end, then they become the end in themselves. If world-history is nothing more than the power dynamic of men oppressing women, then as a woman, your task is obviously to flip that on it’s head since that’s what the world-as-power would demand.

[Anonymous No.23019508]

>>23018135
The irony is that it is nether a patriarchy or a matriarchy, its a jewtrachy.

[Anonymous No.23019510]

Christianity is patriarchal. It commands the wife to be obedient to the husband, to be silent in Church, to not presume to teach or take authority over a man, to be keepers at home, etc.. Christianity also was opposed to occult rituals or "magic", believing it to be demonic. In our post-Patriarchal, post-Christian culture, witchcraft and occult religiosity have become popular amongst feminist women. They evidently see it as a way to rebel or showcase their rebellion against the old order. That's why they brought it up in that context.

[Anonymous No.23021119]

>>23018135
It's a simple combination of women getting rewarded for these critiques by their professors and other women, women being midwits from a tighter IQ distribution (leading to a huge mass of women that are smart enough to be literate but not smart enough to break convention), and the fact that sex underlines the entire female outlook on life. Otto Weininger explains the last point in his book.

>>23018221
>they are at the origin of [...] feminism
This is true in the meta sense that it was based on Christian priors which in turn was influenced by jewish ones, but there was already an Anglo-American feminist movement in the mid to late 19th century. Almost all of the Jewish feminists that would be in your pic were active after WW2, by which women could already vote for 30 years. Look up the Social Purity Movement to see the real core ideology that later Jewish addendums only added upon.

[Anonymous No.23021145]

>>23021119
>based on Christian priors
Right wing anti-Christians have no idea what actual Christianity is. How is it possible for someone to be so ignorant as to declare that feminism has any affinity with Christianity whatsoever? Did you never read the Bible or the Church fathers?

St. Paul
*Patriarchy in the family and society defended.*
>Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

>For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

St. Thomas
*Locates male authority in man’s greater capacity for reason.*
>Woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.

Pope Pius XI
*Quotes on modesty, patriarchy, coeducation.*
>We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances.

>We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.

>this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself…

>False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes.

[Anonymous No.23021173]

>>23018135
Not women, feminists.

[Anonymous No.23021189]

>>23018151
Da mooslims did it

[Anonymous No.23021216]

>>23019510
>It commands the wife to be obedient to the husband, to be silent in Church, to not presume to teach or take authority over a man, to be keepers at home, etc
That's what the verses can say, but people don't mind ignoring verses they don't like and simply picking and choosing what fits with their sensibilities - feelings don't care about your facts. Those sensibilities are based on underlying themes which are far more potent. Themes of spiritual purity taking precedence over base biology, shaming people with moral superiority, outsourcing punishment to the divine Father, and so on. The first two especially were foundational to feminism's success. If your wife is adulterous the Christian outlook wants you to forgive her and for her to pray for forgiveness, what the biological outlook (lizard brain) compels is closer to the muslim outlook, which is to say throwing rocks at her.
>Christianity also was opposed to occult rituals or "magic"
The distinction between occult magic and miracles took a long time to settle, archeology gives us thousands of early Christian magic amulets and magic elixer recipes.
>post-Christian
You cannot extricate 1500 years of moral priors in an instant, Christianity has only been replaced by more efficient ideologies which grew by a similar process.

[Anonymous No.23021273]

>>23018135
because that's what they're taught to do in school. You don't pick up a book, like say: Lord of the Flies, and try to judge it on its own merits, and decipher what the author was trying to say. You pick up a book and say: "where's the fucking patriarchy in this thing?" There's men? There it is! Something bad happens? There it is! There's no women? There it is again! I'm not joking when I say that every single aspect of English education is just a where's waldo with the patriarchy. It's easy to do and it gets you As in school.

[Anonymous No.23021390]

>>23021216
Either the authors of Scripture and its traditional interpreters were unknowingly in contradiction with their own principles when writing against feminism, or you have a warped understanding of those principles. I contend it is the latter.

First, you assert that feminism is linked to the Christian idea that "spiritual purity takes precedence over base biology". However, Christianity teaches that God in His divine providence constituted the social order in a specific way, and that deviations from this order call down divine judgement upon a people. The story of Sodom is the preeminent example. This is the foundation of Christian natural law theory, which asserts that certain moral duties can be derived *from the nature of the things themselves* due to the inherent telos-oriented constitution of the created order. So far from representing a disunity between ethics and biology, this sort of view in fact serves as the foundation for that inference from 'is' to 'ought' --- from 'what kind of a thing I am' to 'what I should be doing'. Hence the commandment to 'honour thy father and mother' is distinct from the commandment to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'; the particular biological relationship situates one within a special ethical context necessarily. Of course there are also universal duties that apply no matter who you are.

It is clear from the Bible that woman was created for man, as a helper. The symbology of being taken from the man's rib is fitting, for she was not taken from his foot as a slave, nor from his half as an equal. This relationship between man and woman is hierarchical in nature. The woman is commanded to submit to her husband, and the man to love and protect his wife. As Pope Pius XI stated, the woman and the man stand in the same relationship to each other as the heart and the head do in the body. It is a relationship of hierarchy that is natural, complimentary, and good. That is the Christian view.

Second, you state that an adulterous wife is to be forgiven, which contradicts the biological desire to take vengeance upon her. The question of an adulterous wife is dealt with in Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 62. To give a summary, a husband is permitted to put away an adulterous wife, but he does not have to do so. She can be corrected in other ways, such as by words or beatings. As for stonings, this is a matter of law and can never be carried out without the proper judicial proceedings. By the way, the scene with Jesus and the adulterous woman is of questionable authority as it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.

Feminism comes historically as Christianity starts to decline. It is impossible to blame Christianity for feminism, especially as Christianity teaches patriarchy, which I've demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.23021404]

>>23018338
Okay so what do I read to follow up on:
>modernity is plastering over the metaphysical canopy
And for this:
>it gives a pass to exercise the will and reach for power, which is what all of these surrogate views are about

I looked up Peter Berger, he wrote alot of books. Is it "The Sacred Canopy"? Which one is the most famous/highly regarded?

And does he also cover the part about the reach for power? Or is that Augusto del Noce?

[Anonymous No.23021699]

>>23021273
>every single aspect of English education is just a where's waldo with the patriarchy.
Hilarious but true. Well, not all that funny.

[Anonymous No.23021701]

Western civilization is just feminism. Always has been.