The Patriarchal Gynocracy

Psychological operations to divide the sexes, destroy the family unit, promote promiscuity, and collapse western civilization—and how it could all be reversed in one generation.

A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.

— Marcus Tullius Cicero

A Natural Team

Discussions of relations between the sexes tend to trigger a reflexive reaction in both. Men and women associate any criticism related to their sex as a personal attack on them. In the 20th-century war on humanity, psychological operations targeting sex identity planted seeds of tribal allegiances that led to confrontation by stimulating in-group and out-group behavior. In the sad games of sexual blame, a critique of the astroturfed feminist movements might be mistaken by a woman as criticism of all women, while the terms INCEL or MGTOW or “toxic masculinity” might trigger defensive behavior and counter-offensive reactions in men.

The most effective means of controlling the masses has always been to keep them divided by whatever divisions can be identified and exploited so that constant distraction and chaos prevent them from accurately identifying the real culprits in power who create these conditions for their benefit. The most effective method of controlling population (apart from abortion and “vaccines”) is to keep the sexes perpetually at odds over trifling issues that can only gain traction when good times create weak men.

Men and women possess complementary physical and psychological strengths that, when combined, create a balanced and formidable partnership. Women generally score higher in emotional intelligence, enabling them to empathize, communicate effectively, and navigate social complexities. Men tend to excel more in logical reasoning and problem-solving under stress. They are also more willing to take risks, which can lead to innovative solutions through bold decisions. Women typically exhibit greater risk aversion, promoting caution and evaluation. Working together, they can balance brave initiatives and cautious planning, reducing potential downsides.

Men generally have superior spatial abilities, crucial for navigation and physical manipulation tasks. Women excel more in verbal skills, enhancing communication through linguistic processing.

Both sexes have different stress responses. Men adopt a "fight or flight" response, leading to decisive action in crises. Women are more likely to engage in "tend and befriend" behaviors, fostering social bonds and collaborative solutions. Men typically exhibit more task-oriented leadership, focusing on goals and efficiency. Women resort to relational leadership, emphasizing cohesion and morale.

These complimenting traits strengthen the other when working in harmony. Historically, this harmonious cohabitation was done for the successful conception and rearing of offspring and the strengthening of the wider community or culture. When the focus of cohabitation and cooperation went from the familial to the political, from the natural to the manufactured, and from domestic strength to individual desires, what promoted success throughout the ages was ignored in favor of the differences that foster division and have pitted the sexes against each other ever since.

---

Neurological differences between the sexes…

How they destroyed men…

---

Women’s Liberation

In the latter half of the 20th century, the feminist movement got its insider funding to begin the destabilization process from various government entities that controlled influential publishing industries in New York City and London. Under the guise of fighting the “cultural cold war” the feminist movement, particularly the second wave, sought to address issues such as gender inequality, reproductive rights, and workplace discrimination. The state, recognizing the social and political popularity of these issues, provided funding for various feminist initiatives, including research grants, educational programs, and public awareness propaganda campaigns. Generations of young women soon believed they were perpetual victims of a conspiratorial patriarchy violating rights that had already been won.

The divide and conquer agenda was just getting started. If the government could successfully convince women to view men as the source of their unhappiness and conversely their future happiness as a product of state-endowed rights being withheld by men, then “patriarchy” could become the engineered enemy du jour of the next wave of feminism. The state could leverage that social and political capital by promoting certain causes to enflame tensions and exploit the increasingly popular yet shallow prioritized female ambitions of self-actualization through hyperindividualism.

The state was not interested in the cooperation of the sexes through the strengths mentioned above for mutual benefit in building healthy families. It needed to replace the dominant male figure, as the paternal state, weakening the only protective barrier within families to make way for the nanny state, the administrative state, and eventually the total surveillance police state.

The state eventually replaced the patriarchal figure in women’s lives through a manufactured campaign of impressing upon women the idea of becoming strong, fierce, and independent—the archetype eventually woven into popular culture through characters like Tess McGill, played by Melanie Griffith in Working Girl (1988). Engineering the female aspiration to out-compete men in academia and the workforce required placing negative social value on family building, child-rearing, and marriage in their pursuit of self-fulfillment. If successful in this objective, women would out-earn men, rendering their superior financial status a detriment in any mate selection process since women will either resent or subconsciously look down upon any man whose financial status falls short as a provider.

Anecdotally, women will say they’re fine with a man who earns less (or nothing) than them, so long as they contribute in other ways. There are certainly examples of successful marriages involving women who outearn men financially, but these are the rare exceptions to the norm. Some women will say they are fine with a man who is not financially well off, physically strong, or capable because he has other “great qualities” or virtues that they will claim compensate for those shortcomings. But this denies millennia of psycho-biological programming and over a century of research to the contrary.

These natural traits for mate selection have been upended by post-modern machinations designed to destroy psycho-biological instincts and thereby the family unit. Romantic Hollywood fairytales, propaganda funneled through the advertising industry formulating new subconscious desires, and the recent phenomena of virtue signaling—the process by which adults deny reality, common sense, instincts, and scientific evidence to appear virtuous in the eyes of their peers and thereby feel good about themselves—have all played a role in the subversion or the natural order of sexual desires.

A quick review of what factors are considered to be the top three for female mate selection:

1. Resource Provision: The male's ability to provide resources—like food, shelter, and stability—is linked to increased survival and reproductive success for the female and her offspring. This factor encompasses financial stability, social status, and industriousness, all of which contribute to providing a secure environment.

2. Protection: The male’s capacity to protect her and her offspring is essential. This includes physical strength, bravery, and social dominance, traits associated with safeguarding against threats, thereby providing a successful future outcome for her offspring.

3. Mate Copying: The perceived desirability of a male by other females can influence a female's interest, a phenomenon known as "mate copying." A male's social appeal suggests that he possesses favorable traits that other females find attractive, frequently a signal of genetic fitness and desirability.

What happens when all three of these factors are socially reversed so that states and corporations replace the male as the primary provider of financial stability and resource provision, and the modern machinations of “social mimicry” emphasize independence, sexual promiscuity, and a wholesale rejection of motherhood and family?

To “liberate” women from their hardwired biology has been nothing short of catastrophic for the prospective demographics of Western civilization, where (outside of popular culture tumors in Korea and Japan, and government child intervention in China) these social engineering operations have generally been most targeted.

Gloria Steinem and the CIA

One of the more controversial aspects of the astroturfed feminist movement’s history involves Gloria Steinem's connections with the Central Intelligence Agency. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was revealed that Steinem had worked with the CIA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. She has publicly acknowledged her involvement with the CIA, stating that she saw no contradiction between her work for the agency and her feminist activism.

This subversion began with the CIA infiltration of a campus organization called the National Student Association, paying student “volunteers” to become radical activists and recruit other students to their cause. The agency created a front organization called the Independent Research Service to recruit American students to disrupt Soviet-controlled World Youth Festivals in Vienna, in 1959, and Helsinki, in 1962. The person in charge was Gloria Steinem, who knew perfectly well where the money was coming from and never regretted taking it. “If I had a choice I would do it again,” she later said.

The revelation of Steinem's connection to the CIA raised questions about the role of government influence in so-called grassroots movements, most of which appear to be social engineering operations or psychological operations. The feminist movement was about as organic and authentic as Black Lives Matter today. Steinem and her supporters contend that her work with the CIA was aimed at promoting democratic ideals and countering totalitarianism.

In later waves of feminism, the publishing industries in New York City and London played a crucial role in amplifying voices and disseminating feminist literature. The publishing industry only churned out selected works to reinforce whatever psychological operations and culture war divisions needed enflaming. Anything antithetical to the Rockefeller and Club of Rome’s divide-and-conquer agenda would never see the printing press.

Major publishing houses and influential magazines such as Ms. Magazine, co-founded by Gloria Steinem, provided platforms for feminist writers, activists, and scholars. These publications popularized feminist ideas and brought the issue of “gender inequality” to the forefront of public discourse, making it a mainstay of initiation into University life for young students undergoing indoctrination in higher education. Instead of learning to think critically about important issues, young scholars were subjected to regurgitating orthodoxies rooted in fabrications like “toxic masculinity” and the non-existent “gender pay gap” which gave young women the delusion of a dominant patriarchy conspiring against them.

In the three decades since these divisions took root, the entire paradigm has been flipped, and women now make up the majority of college graduates, post-graduates, and entrants into major fields like medicine and the law.¹

Divorce, Working Girl, and The State as “Daddy”

Hollywood played a role in serving the government's agenda of destroying families, though the artistic community often claims that its dramatic works simply tell stories that reflect wider cultural trends. This isn’t a social “chicken or the egg” debate as Hollywood has long influenced social norms through desired mimicry and acceptance of what is possible for its aspirational viewers. There is a push and pull in both directions between popular culture and what happens in normal society.

In the highest-grossing box office film of 1979, Kramer vs. Kramer, Meryl Streep plays Joanna Kramer, wife to Ted Kramer and mother to Billy. Joanna walks out on the family one day for reasons her husband, son, and the viewers never really find out until the end. Ted has just been promoted at his ad agency and is forced to raise Billy alone for fifteen months in New York City. While he’s not the most present father due to his hectic career, he eventually (along with the viewers) discovers that Joanna needed to go off “and find herself in California” with the help of a therapist. She wants a divorce, and eventually returns and proclaims herself ready to be a mother to Billy whom she wants to bring back to California with her…after abandoning him and his father. The court system rules against Ted because of his hectic career, which would prohibit him from being the “present father” that Billy needs.

The film is a fine reflection of the increasing absurdity of divorce at a time when the rise of hyper-individualism combined with the therapy and positivity movements lured self-obsessed idiots to go in search of “self-actualization” by abandoning their duties as husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers. While the film doesn’t cover these subjects (cough cough) it’s also a commentary on how economically, the family unit was destined to crumble under the crushing burden of central bank monetary policies, the abandoned gold standard, and rapidly rising inflation of the 1970s and 80s which eventually pushed both parents in the workforce to the delight of corporations and the state, which now had two tax paying debt servants rather than just one to subsidize it’s massive looting and pillaging operations, economically known as “deficit spending.”

The state knew that inflation and deficit spending would eventually require more than one household earner to subsidize, so they began the process of psychologically programming dual-career parents, and even single parents (with child support) as attainable. What the state ultimately wanted was to replace parents as the ultimate influence over their children, by sending them to full-time jobs. With parents away at work, television took over programming their children alongside public Rockefeller education. It was the ultimate buffet of molding minds and destroying the traditional family.

While not all divorces during this era were rooted in frivolous and hyper-narcissistic desires, the fact that divorce became as easy as drive-thru dining, didn’t help foster the support and reconciliation couples once had through the community, extended family, and the clergy. The convergence of terrible economic policies, central administrative government planning, and hyper-individualist social movements created a socio-cultural inferno from which the United States and much of the West have never recovered. At first, it was children who suffered emotionally and psychologically, but as those children who were reared in single-parent households (or split time between divorced parents) grew into dysfunctional adults, the statistics show that it was later all of society that paid the price.

Two Jewish actors go through a very absurd divorce and custody battle over their gentile kid in Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), produced by Stanley Jaffe and based on the novel by Avery Corman.

In Working Girl (1988), Melanie Griffith challenged traditional “gender roles,” including an asshole boyfriend, and very misogynist men to win the corner office at Trask Industries. Directed by Mikhail Igor Peschkowsky, aka Mike Nichols.

Divorce Rates

• United States:

  The divorce rate increased significantly from 2.6 per 1,000 in 1950 to a peak of 5.3 per 1,000 in 1980. After 1980, the divorce rate began to decline, reaching 3.5 per 1,000 by 2010, but marriage rates collapsed

  

  U.S. Marriage rates 1900-2017.

• United Kingdom:

  The divorce rate was much lower in 1950 at 0.3 per 1,000 and saw a steady increase, reaching 2.6 per 1,000 by 2000.

Divorce rates peaked with the release of Kramer vs. Kramer in 1980.

While divorce rates eventually settled down to a reversion, the collapsing marriage rates can be attributed to several factors:

1. Declining importance of Church and God in the lives of ordinary citizens

2. Divorce lawfare that harshly punished men (financially and as fathers)

3. Women out-earning men financially thereby collapsing the mating pool

4. Women choosing invitro fertilization (alongside a career) to be single mothers

5. The emasculation of men (endocrinologically and psychologically - see Good Citizen essays Androgynopolous and Androgycrats)

For the final factor (#5) see this video of a man getting weepy-eyed because he just voted for an unelected semi-literate barely coherent puppet because he thinks it will allow his three daughters the right to kill his grandchildren in the womb when they’re older.

---

While the state got two earners paying taxes in married households, it also ended up far worse off by having to subsidize an ever-increasing welfare state made possible by destroying the male as the primary earner, and thereby the future success of what once constituted the backbone of a successful America—the family unit.

Children in single-parent households are approximately four times more likely to experience poverty than those in married households.² The financial strain often translates into educational disadvantages, with children in single-parent households showing lower academic achievement, directly correlating with decreased future earnings, while also facing higher exposure to socioeconomic stress, which can arrest cognitive and emotional development.³

With maldevelopment and no father figures present, crime and incarceration rates are higher among children from single-mother households. Boys raised in single-mother households are more than twice as likely to engage in delinquent behavior, with a drastically increased risk of incarceration by adulthood. Girls raised by single mothers, while showing lower rates of incarceration than boys, also exhibit higher risks for early pregnancy and lower educational attainment, both of which limit future income potential.⁴

Children from single-parent households face additional health risks that correlate with lower life expectancy, with limited access to healthcare and nutritious food due to economic hardship, leading to higher rates of chronic illness and mortality in adulthood.⁵

• significantly higher risks in terms of poverty

• lower educational attainment

• reduced professional opportunities

• increased criminality and incarceration

• decreased life expectancy

Chastity and Civilization

In his book Sex and Culture (1934), J.D. Unwin examined the relationship between sexual behavior and the stability and prosperity of civilizations. Unwin (an Oxford-educated anthropologist) analyzed 80 societies across 5,000 years of recorded history and found that cultures that maintained strict sexual norms, particularly regarding female chastity before and after marriage, experienced greater social energy, innovation, and prosperity.

He claimed that societies enforcing monogamy and discouraging premarital sex, especially for women, demonstrated higher levels of cultural and economic growth. According to Unwin, when sexual norms were relaxed—societal energy and creativity diminished, leading to stagnation and decline. He suggested that “sexual license," which included widespread promiscuity and the loosening of family structures, reduced the collective drive that had previously led to cultural success.

Unwin posited that no civilization maintained its social energy for more than a century after adopting sexual permissiveness. Once sexual norms became more liberal, societies experienced a marked decline within three generations. Societies that practiced strict monogamy and sexual abstinence outside of marriage had the greatest potential for expansion and development. Female chastity was more influential than male chastity in maintaining cultural vitality.

Unwin’s work has been criticized for not adequately considering economic, political, and environmental factors that also contribute to a civilization’s rise or fall. His emphasis on female sexual restraint has been viewed as “inherently sexist,” reflecting a “patriarchal bias” of which neither is evidence of untruths in his thesis regarding female chastity within those 80 civilizations over 5,000 years.

If it appears that what we might collectively call “Western civilization” has strayed so far beyond anything recognizable regarding women’s liberation and its impact on chastity and monogamy compared to those past civilizations… well, it’s much worse than that.

That wasn’t enough for her, and an ambitious post-modern “fully liberated” woman can always achieve more if she puts her mind yawning canal to it.

In the digital ether, she has received the kind of harsh backlash you’d expect. Cruel insults are hardly persuasive in helping others, and this young woman is a walking cry for help, though, if she doesn’t receive that help soon she may never walk normally again.

It boggles the mind to hear women still harp on about living in a Patriarchy. The kind of rampant sexual promiscuity that has made websites like OnlyFans popular would never be allowed in an actual patriarchy and would be prevented by the dominant males of such a society who would destroy anyone who dared peddle pornography, and shame the young men who consume it.

In a real patriarchy, the above harlot would be prohibited by her father, brothers, uncle, boyfriend, or husband, and the punishment if she still went against the deeply conservative norms of a nation like Afghanistan or Pakistan would be death by stoning. Any woman even accused of adultery (never mind her innocence or the guilt of a man who may have raped her) is tossed inside a ditch just deep enough so her covered head still appears, and is stoned to death.

A woman is stoned to death in Afghanistan.

These are the cultural polar extremes of chastity and the permissiveness of “my body my choice” on the one hand, and complete control by men over the decisions of women. While neither extreme is fundamentally healthy, fair, just, or sustainable, it’s difficult to find sympathy with the hoards of indoctrinated young women of the West psychologically weaponized by the masters of the white-replacement-population-control-agenda who insist the state supports her right to kill her offspring.

Given the hysteria of liberal and progressive women in the wake of the Presidential selection theater suffering mass mental illness and openly broadcasting their mental illness to the world, I was going to include a section on this narcissistic and childish behavior that can only come from aimless wanderers, highly brainwashed by decades of ((feminism)) to the station of perpetual victimhood, but this video response of a delusional young woman Harris-voter dressing up as Katniss Everdeen (to fight the Capitol or something?) clarifies it perfectly.

“If Katniss Everdeen existed, she would live in Gaza.”

That face you make when you belong in an asylum for hyper narcissists with so much surplus time on your childless hands that you resort to self-defiling acts as signifiers of “resistance” from imaginary persecution to gain social acceptance. IOW…with no real purpose or meaning in life.

If Unwin’s thesis holds again for the 81st time, then we in the collective “West” are already beyond the point of lack of innovation through social energy leading to deficits of widely shared prosperity and we are well into the final stages of a terminal collapse. It doesn’t have to be this way, and could even be reversed within a single generation if those with the power to create transformational culture shifts so desired.

For women, it all begins and ends with social mimicry.

1950s social mimicry: marriage, motherhood, and family, made possible by economic stability. How grotesque and misogynist.

Social Mimicry

Social mimicry among young women can be effectively understood through the work of Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory which posits that individuals acquire behaviors by observing others, especially those who hold social status or influence.⁶ Young women often replicate behaviors exhibited by peers, celebrities, or influencers because these behaviors are socially rewarded.

High Schools and University campuses are key locations for the promotion and replication of these behaviors, where peer validation and social modeling dominate. The replication of offline behaviors observed on university campuses extends into online spaces and vice versa. Behaviors like criticizing traditional gender roles or emphasizing hyper-independence are frequently celebrated, and observational learning is further reinforced through public validation. This feedback loop of social validation encourages the adoption and normalization of these behaviors which also include sexual promiscuity. Among young women, social mimicry is stronger, as their self-validation comes through peer acceptance and increased social standing.

David Buss suggests that women often engage in mimicry to enhance their value in a competitive social environment, but not their value to potential male mates as was traditionally the norm.⁷ By presenting themselves as strong, resourceful, and independent, young women signal their status to gain approval from their female peers. This form of signaling is a self-reinforcing loop to the narcissist, further encouraging these behaviors.

The increasing achievement of higher education and financial independence by women contributes to a dynamic in which traditional mate selection becomes more challenging. By out-competing men in financially lucrative fields, women are unknowingly depleting their prospective mating pool, while signaling to their female peers that they have conquered the astroturfed social ladder of “self-empowerment.”

A (Club of Rome) coordinated effort aimed to accelerate population decline, has exploited these engineered social dynamics. By promoting abortion as an act of empowerment and framing motherhood as an obstacle to personal freedom, they’ve normalized decisions that lead to lower birth rates. Economically they’ve reinforced this social model with monetary policies that exacerbate inflation and make home ownership prohibitive without substantial income. For nearly six decades they’ve divided men and women, destroyed the family unit, harmed children from single-parent or broken families, and sent Western fertility rates plummeting.

Imagine, however, a society where social mimicry operated in the opposite direction.

In such a world, economic feasibility would not be a barrier—women would be free from crushing student debt and would not face the economic pressure to prioritize careers over family. Instead of being burdened with narratives that vilify traditional family roles, this society would place value on abstinence, and sexual restraint, and would incentivize marriage, motherhood, and family-building.

Billions of dollars that currently flow into universities and entertainment industries to undermine these values would, in this alternate scenario, be redirected towards promoting the beauty of partnership, raising children, and building strong, supportive families. The social rewards for emulating behaviors like sexual restraint, commitment, and partnership would be immense, and social mimicry would soon take over to self-reinforce a very positive loop.

Young women would aspire to build beautiful families, with motherhood celebrated and deeply respected. Sexual promiscuity would be frowned upon by both peers and family, not as a moral imposition but as an undesirable deviation from the path to the natural order of our species. Abortion would be seen as an unfortunate last resort for victims of rape or incest or to save the mother, while the creation and nurturing of life would be held as the ultimate aspiration.

The domino effect of social mimicry would create an atmosphere where young women would find fulfillment in mutual support, nurturing partnerships, and the shared goal of raising the next generation. The power of social modeling could, in this paradigm, shift toward reinforcing an uplifting cycle that counters the anti-human depopulation agenda that has dominated for a century.

Younger women are waking up to the anti-human agenda and increasingly speaking out about what life they'd prefer to live. They know the bag of goods they've been sold by their programmed intel-funded feminist predecessors is rotten, and they’re pissed off that economic circumstances (central banking fiat currencies, and inflation) have left them holding that rotten bag.

---

The journey down the paradox of tolerance often results in unforeseen calamities. Tolerating certain unnatural behaviors has consequences, and traditionally it was the men of civilizations who determined what behaviors would and would NOT be tolerated by both men and women.

But weak men will sooner or later tolerate anything. And hard times follow.

Anytime our species shows a disregard for nature and its evolved biological inclination we are inputting malware into our own reproductive and familial social systems.

The consequences are now all around us.

---

Can you hear her pussy roar?

Two worlds colliding

And they could never, ever, tear us apart

We could live for a thousand years

1. In 2021, women earned about 58% of all bachelor's degrees and nearly 60% of all master's degrees in the United States. This shift in higher education demographics has significant implications for mate selection, as women may subconsciously look down upon men with lesser educational or economic prospects, undermining potential partnerships and reducing relationship stability.

2. McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Harvard University Press.

3. Ginther, D. K., & Pollak, R. A. (2004). Family structure and children's educational outcomes: Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions. Demography, 41(4), 671–696.

4. Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and child well-being: A critical review. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24, 88-95.

5. Case, A., Lubotsky, D., & Paxson, C. (2001). Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1308–1334.

6. Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, 1977, pp. 55-76.

7. Buss, David M. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Routledge, 2019, pp. 139-165.

---

Fixed Income Pensioner Discount (honor system)

Student Discount (valid .edu email)

Thank you for sharing

The Good Citizen is now on Ko-Fi. Support more works like this with one-time or monthly donations.

Visit shop.thegoodcitizen.live

Donate

BTC: bc1qchkg507t0qtg27fuccgmrfnau9s3nk4kvgkwk0
LTC: LgQVM7su3dXPCpHLMsARzvVXmky1PMeDwY
XLM: GDC347O6EWCMP7N5ISSXYEL54Z7PNQZYNBQ7RVMJMFMAVT6HUNSVIP64
DASH: XtxYWFuUKPbz6eQbpQNP8As6Uxm968R9nu
XMR: 42ESfh5mdZ5f5vryjRjRzkEYWVnY7uGaaD