Feminism: a cancer that destroys the matriarchy — and our culture.

Originally posted 2017-05-16 12:16:50.

We in the West are lucky. We live in the most varied, rich and progressive culture the world has ever known. Its foundation is in science. Science gives us a true way to understand the world and indeed, the universe we live in. While it may have no absolute certainties, as a body it represents the most reliable, accurate and sustainable system of knowledge humanity has even known. It is also the biggest, by far, repository of learning. That is why the unholy alliance of feminism and the cult of anti-science is as dangerous as it is: because it seeks to destroy science as the basis of our culture and replace it with mumbo-jumbo.

Now we always had mumbo-jumbo but the feminist-anti-science coalition is different. Its mumbo-jumbo is pseudo-science and we have no better example of the pernicious influence of this newest form than the submission of ‘science spokesman’ Bill Nye — now a laughing stock — to it.

The reason why feminists have fallen in with anti-science cultists is that feminism long ago stopped being about equality between men and women. In the West that was achieved decades ago anyway. The current fashion is to try to persuade us that there is no difference between males and females. The ultimate purpose of this is to replace males with females and, in the end, to eradicate males altogether.


Organisms that reproduce sexually, which is all of the higher animals including us, occur in two different morphs: male and female. Males have one set of reproductive organs and females have a complementary set. Using a special form of cell division called meiosis, which is different from regular cell division or mitosis, each morph produces a cell called a gamete which contains half of the genetic information required to make other cells. We call female gametes ova (sing. ovum) and male ones sperm.

In order to make a new organism, one of each type of gamete must unite. The sperm cell enters the ovum and moves to the nucleus, where the two halves of genetic information carried by DNA are united into one. The ovum immediately begins to replicate by mitosis and a new organism grows.

This is basic biology and it is totally immutable. Whether an individual becomes a male or a female is determined by the nature of their 23rd pair of  chromosomes: males have an ‘XY’ pair (karotype) and females ‘XX’.

This can NEVER BE CHANGED. It is impossible to change an individual’s karotype.

This means two things: firstly that, deny it as you will, there are two sexes and they are different and secondly that so-called ‘sex changes’ are not possible.

XX and XY

Sex is not determined by external appearance but by one’s karotype — XX or XY. Persons with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) routinely appear to be normal females, with female external organs, but they are actually male. They have XY chromosomes and lack female internal organs. The reason they are born with vaginas is that all foetuses have vaginas initially; the penis and testes form later under the influence of testosterone, released under instruction of those XY chromosomes. Since they are by definition insensitive to testosterone, people with CAIS never grow these organs. But despite appearances they are chromosomally male — although socially the behave and are accepted as, women.

People with CAIS, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) and other similar conditions, eg Klinefelter’s, are known as ‘intersex’. But there is a minuscule number of them, so although their conditions may be severely distressing and ham-fisted surgical attempts to ‘correct’ them have caused great harm, for almost everyone, they are irrelevant: humans come in two morphs, male and female, and they are not the same.

So what are the differences? In the first place, males cannot bear children; only females can. This affects a great deal of our behaviour.

In humans, the dimorphism between males and females is marked, although by no means the most extreme, even amongst mammals. Yet there are specific, observable differences.


On average, within a specific population, males are bigger, stronger, have more highly developed and muscular upper bodies, carry less fat at normal weight, and have muscles better adapted to rapid, violent contraction. Their centre of balance is high, making it easier for them to topple prey — or an adversary. Size for size they are heavier than females because relatively more of their body mass is bone and muscle, which is heavier than fat. Their pelvises are narrow and box-shaped, which gives much greater strength and also allows for their legs to be more parallel, with a slight gap at the knees; this makes a better, faster sprinter. They tend to have larger hands and feet.

Again, on average in the same population, females are smaller, shorter, less heavy for their height, and carry much more fat at normal weight. Their centre of balance is low and they have wide hips, making it easier to carry children. Their limbs are relatively shorter than the male and their hands and feet tend to be much smaller. Their muscle type is suited to repetitive contraction and is less so for violent contraction.

These differences go hand in hand with behavioural differences. We know from archaeology (Kuhn and Stiner) that there has been marked division of tasks and social role by sex since at least the Middle Palaeolithic. It probably goes back longer, to the time of Toba or before. This division of tasks by sex is likely to be the main reason that homo sapiens sapiens were more successful than other hominid species or even Neanderthals, who were strictly a sub-species.

In practice, this division of social roles, the sexualised behaviour that humans use to attract mates, the way we relate to each other and our young and our physical dimorphism are combined in a somewhat vague concept called ‘gender’.

Gender is not the same as sex

Now gender is not at all the same as sex. It is based in sex and in sex and reproductive drive, but it’s not the same. Indeed, it is quite possible for humans of one sex to appear to be of the gender normally associated with the other. That is because gender is not how we express our sex, but how we express our sexuality. If you have female sexuality, that is, you want to be penetrated by big hairy men, then your natural gender is feminine. It really is that simple.

What modern feminists are trying to say is, essentially, that sex differences do not exist and that gender, far from being a system of behaviours that evolved to ensure the success of our species through male protection of women and children, is an invention of men, designed to oppress women.

All of this would be bad enough, but it gets worse. The feminist movement has always trumpeted that it is all about equality. However, in the West, that aim was achieved decades ago. Job discrimination on the basis of sex has long been outlawed. It is illegal to have pay differentials on the basis of sex. Women, typically, are far more likely to win custody of children in the case of separation and in many jurisdictions they do far better than men in property division.

The eradication of men

Today, the feminist movement is not about equality but domination and, in extreme form, the eradication of men. Since feminism now exists as a part of the unholy triad of female, black and Islamic supremacism, their principal target is, overtly, white men — especially if they are Christian. That this is sexist, racist and religiously intolerant is obvious — to everyone, apparently, save those who support these points of view.

There are only two genders; but our mistake has been in not recognising what they are. One, usually associated with males, is the masculine gender and its social expression is ‘men’. The other is usually taken to be ‘feminine’ but this is misleading. While linguistically accurate, it is more logically consistent to call this other gender ‘non-masculine’ and its social expression ‘not-men’ (Kulick 1996). While it is true that this gender is based on and around females, it includes a number of males who do not fit into the ‘men’ category.

How can this be? How can a male not be a man? Well, simply, by not conforming to the social expectations and standards required to be a part of the ‘men’ group. As a result, the ‘men’ group is rigidly and often violently policed by other men in order to ‘retrain’ or even purge non-conformists. The methods include ‘rites of passage’ which often include danger and pain, beatings and other violence and even killings.


Among the standards required to be a member of the ‘men’ group are: being born with a penis; not showing fear or pain; enjoying and being good at competitive sports, hunting, business, politics and so on; being successful at seducing women; fathering many children, preferably with as many different women as possible; being good at drinking, gambling, smoking and so on.

On the other hand, some signs of non-conformity are frowned on, with sanctions ranging from the mildly condemned to the absolutely forbidden. Being good at dancing or creative arts, for example, or desiring a traditionally feminine social role, like primary school teacher or nurse, might meet with an air of disdain but not enough to disbar a male from the ‘men’ group.

Affecting feminine behaviours, dress or appearance, however, is an immediate red-card offence. But far, far worse is being penetrated. No matter what the culture, having a penis in one’s rectum is a banning offence, at least for an adult male and a desire for this is orders of magnitude worse. Any such male is automatically and irrevocably ejected from the ‘men’ group, has all male status removed and may be shunned, beaten or killed.

This, by the way, is the function of male rape. In this a man is forcibly

Raphanus sativus. That’s going to be noticed

penetrated anally, either by a penis or with an object. As a matter of fact, in Ancient Rome, the preferred device was a radish — but not the small round variety that many in Britain are most familiar with. Instead, what was used is known today as Asian Radish or daikon, literally ‘big root’, Raphanus sativus. This is significantly larger than most human penises and the reason for its use was to inflict as much pain as possible. Even if a man resists such penetration, if it succeeds then he stops being a ‘man’ and becomes a ‘not-man’; all his masculine status is thereby expunged.


By definition, the ‘not-men’ group is everyone who is not, for whatever reason, in the ‘men’ group. It is hardly policed at all. In more tolerant societies, such as we find in Southeast Asia, those males who are either rejected from the ‘men’ group or, as frequently happens, willingly recuse themselves, automatically become a part of the ‘not-men’ group.

This group is by definition matriarchal, centred on women and their children, and such adult males as remain inside — because they refuse or are refused entry into the ‘men’ group — it are given a social role and status. They are given a life. They cannot achieve the status that a female can, because they cannot have children. But they can and do perform important roles such as child-care, house-cleaning, laundry and so on. In addition and importantly, these individuals, known as ‘ladyboys’ across Asia, are highly respected for their talents at make-up and hairstyling and women actively seek them out for this purpose. This allows the ladyboy some small income. Alternatively, if they are beautiful, they may become dancers or models and some will become prostitutes. All of these are traditionally feminine roles.

This openness and tolerance in the not-men group is why there is an illusion of multiple genders within it. If one is a ‘not-man’ one is allowed any gender expression one likes. It’s not an issue. Traditionally, only within the ‘men’ group are these gender standards policed.

Two Social Models

It should be obvious that within traditional societies therefore, two social models obtain, based on gender — ‘men’ and ‘not-men’. In other terms we might describe these as ‘patriarchy’ (the ‘men’ group) and ‘matriarchy’.

Neither, in this model, exists alone, nor do the members of one impinge on the other. Men have authority outside the home and in what are regarded as masculine roles and women have that inside the home and what are regarded as feminine roles. These two models exist side-by-side and in harmony because they are complementary. Women bear and raise children, make the homes, organise the markets and so on, while men do the heavy work, harvesting rice, hunting in more traditional cultures or, in modern ones, working either in manual labour or in ‘masculine’ professions. Their importance to the matriarchal not-men group is that they make the money and provide the food and clothes and, most importantly, the homes for the women and children. Men work — and often give their health and even lives — to support the women and children.

The patriarchy, therefore, is a protective and supportive structure, made up of males, that exists in order to provide sustenance for the females, so that they can bring up children in safety. This is symbiotic; without men to provide the homes and sustenance, women and children would be without shelter or food; and without the women, the men would die out. This complementary two-group structure is what has made humans so successful. It is intrinsic and essential to us.

Yet when we listen to modern, especially USican, feminists, they constantly harp on about the patriarchy and its oppression of women. How has this come about?

Women in the West

Until a century or so ago, women in the West lived in a two-group society not dissimilar to that which we see in Asia and elsewhere today. Women lived fulfilled lives, in which they derived their greatest satisfaction, as well as their social status, from their children. They lived, in other words, in a matriarchy. We could actually argue that this culture persists today, all over the West, but it is reviled — loathed — by trendy Leftist journalists and of course, the feminists they are obsessed with.

This was destroyed by feminism. The aim of feminism has never really been ‘equality’ in a meaningful sense. Women already had that. Indeed, within traditional societies, women are, in most senses. in charge. They are the authority figures within the home. They make the decisions about the family. They are responsible for discipline. And they teach and nurture the children. When they are grandmothers they become the matriarchs of their clans.

Instead of equality, feminism has always sought to supplant men. Feminists are women who want to take men’s roles — well, some of them. I hear no clamour from women to become coalminers, fishermen or refuse-collectors. No, what feminists want is to supplant men in the safe roles that do not require hard work.


Feminism destroys the matriarchy

Feminism does not seek to ‘establish a matriarchy’. It does everything it can to destroy the remnants of the real matriarchy that did and still does exist. We even have feminists clamouring for women to be legally obliged to go out to work, and place their children in the hands of ‘child-care professionals’. The real matriarchy is detested by feminists and they are determined to stamp it out; the enemy of the matriarchy is not the patriarchy at all, it is feminist women.

Feminism, instead, seeks to colonise the patriarchy and take it over. But since women destroyed the Western patriarchy, it no longer exists and so they now must recreate it, with women playing the roles that men once did. Women, in other words, wish to become men, so that they can play men’s roles in society. They do not want the matriarchy; instead they want the patriarchy to be run by hyper-masculine women, and in order to do that they must hyper-emasculate all men. And that is just what they are doing.

All over the West, for decades, masculinity — the foundation of the patriarchy — has been reviled, with the express and specific intention of suppressing men so that they can be overwhelmed by women.

The damage already done to Western culture — the finest the world has ever known — is immense. Just because of its very tolerance, fair-mindedness and belief in liberty and equality, our culture has proven itself vulnerable to the social cancer of feminism. This cancer is not alone, it is true, but without the groundwork laid by feminists, the others that afflict our society today would have far less purchase. Feminists have created a society of emasculated men who cannot protect their women, and masculinised women who remain just as vulnerable as they always did, for the simple reason that they are weaker and smaller.


The patriarchy/matriarchy symbiosis does not depend on sex. It is not to get sex that men give their lives to supporting women and children. They do so because through it they gain status as successful fathers; as patriarchs.

Paradoxically, feminists have brought about the very horror they rail against; they have turned women in the West into sex objects. Men never saw women only as sex objects. Men have always been able to distinguish between casual sex and rewarding partnerships; feminists have obscured that divide.

Before feminism, men saw women as the foundation of family, and in family their own success and gratification. They saw women as partners in that project, not as sexual gratification alone and the literature demonstrating this is huge; it is not until the 20th century that sex — repackaged as ‘romantic love’ — becomes the principal motivation for men to marry.

If men see women as sex objects alone today, then this is entirely the fault of feminists. If women are encouraged, by other women, to have sex with as many men as they like, and as often as they like, then men are encouraged to think that the only reward they ever need is a good fuck. Instead of potential mothers, partners in family, women are turned into literal cum-buckets.

The Goddess and the Whore

The distinction between Goddess and Whore — crucial to the functioning of our culture — is not just blurred but eradicated. Women’s role-models, self proclaimed feminists like Madonna and Miley Cyrus, promote themselves not only as whores but as the cheapest of the cheap. Their sexuality has no value. It is not to be revered. They have made themselves objects.

And if women encourage men to emasculate themselves — to become womanly — and to treat women as casual gratification and nothing more, by rewarding this behaviour with sex, then the consequences are even worse. And this is exactly what has happened.

Feminism is a catastrophe for our culture, but most of all, for women.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rod Fleming on Patreon!

3 Replies to “Feminism: a cancer that destroys the matriarchy — and our culture.”

  1. Welcome back Rod!

    I have wavered, as I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but every day it is becoming more difficult.

    Feminism IS CANCER.

    I saw this tw*t last night and…yeah, this is what western feminism is all about. Makes my blood boil:


    from Chapter 10 of ‘Who Stole Feminism” – CH Sommers

  2. I’m a creationist rather than an evolutionist, but otherwise, I agree fully with this article. (By the way, it’s nice to see conservatives even among evolutionists: We need all the allies we can get against the intersectionalists.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *