Patriarchy and authoritarianism

Recently, Nick B. Steves posted an image to Twitter that I found both intriguing and confusing:

I was intrigued by the relationship between the various groups and sites. In 2012, I discovered a rag-tag group of blogs that were, at the time, generally referred to as “the manosphere.” This group was diverse, including sites such as In Mala Fide, Captain Capitalism, The Spearhead, Dalrock, and Roosh V. By the time I started this blog in 2013, there was a distinct “Christian Manospere,” with the sites I found influential at the time being Dalrock, Cane Caldo, The Society of Phineas, and Free Northerner. With the exception of Dalrock, I believe each of those sites were founded in 2012, and I probably found each within 6 months of its founding. Others, such as Deep Strength, joined this little corner of the internet after me.

I think it was through Free Northerner, and his Lightning Rounds, that I first became aware of some of the other nooks of the internet. First it was “the Dark Enlightenment,” then “Neoreactionaries,” and then “the Alt-Right.” I don’t claim to know when these groups developed, but there was certainly interplay in the past three years between each of them and the group of Christian bloggers I read and interacted with. I read various of their works, and found some excellent and clear thinking writers in each.

So I was intrigued by the charting of how various groups overlapped and were related. But I was confused by the axis–or rather one of them. I understood the “Muh female empowerment/who bitch this is” axis to be a patriarchy axis (and perhaps that understanding was wrong)–it was the other I didn’t get. I figured that it was probably because I had no clue what “there are five lights” meant. I forgot about it until Mr. Steves made a comment on Twitter about me being fairly high up the “who bitch this is” axis, and then I took the opportunity to ask him what “there are five lights” meant.

If I understand Mr. Steves correctly, this is a authoritarianism axis. That satisfied me for a while. But then I got to thinking again, and if I now understand the axis correctly, I must disagree with Mr. Steves. Not on his placement of the various groups, but on the axis themselves.

A patriarchy axis and a authoritarianism axis are the same thing.

“muh female empowerment” and “muh constitutshun” are the same thing. “There are five lights” and “who bitch this is” are inseparable.

Him: There are five lights

Her: I only see four

Him: Who bitch this is? Yours? Tell her how many lights there are

Her Man: There are five lights, love

Her: OK

Indeed, why should a man have authority over a woman? Because God ordains it. Thus patriarchy is authoritarian. Thus I cannot understand the chart. Dalrock, for example, is placed high on patriarchy, but moderate on authoritarianism. How can this be? How can patriarchy even exist without authoritarianism?

I submit that patriarchy is authoritarianism.

Ever since I penned my statement that I am not a reactionary, I have been accused of misunderstanding and mischaracterizing neoreactionaries. (Though never, as I recall, by Mr. Steves) That may be the case here.

But any understanding of patriarchy that is not explicitly authoritarian is a void one.

And any authoritarianism that is not patriarchal is satanic.

5 thoughts on “Patriarchy and authoritarianism

  1. The vertical axis is measure of authority of the sovereign. In the limit, can he make there be “five lights”. The negative direction is how much may the authority of the sovereign be limited, e.g., by divided government, by “constitutions”, etc.

    Patriarchy is a species of legitimate authority. It is not however sovereign authority (primary “ownership”) over a land. Conflating the two is I think a mistake.

  2. That said, clearly the two axes will not be orthogonal, nor would (if had the artistic chops to draw it) a third axis of race/ethnic realism been orthogonal to the other two.

  3. @ NBS,

    Patriarchy is a species of legitimate authority. It is not however sovereign authority (primary “ownership”) over a land.

    I see a king as the “owner” of a land in the sense that he is entrusted by God the stewardship of it, and thus authority over it.
    I see a husband as the “owner” of a wife in the sense that he is entrusted by God with the stewardship of her, and thus authority over her.

    Thus, I seem them as the same thing, but on different scales, just as the various servants were given the same thing (talents) in different amounts in the parable.

    Edit: Posted before I saw the follow-up comments, which make sense to me.

Leave a Comment