Ironwood Speaks: Welcome To The Puerarchy. This Is What The Hell Is Wrong With You.

Ironwood Speaks: Welcome To The Puerarchy.  This Is What The Hell Is Wrong With You.

Jul 16, 2013

When feminism rewrote the social contract in the 1970s, the goal was to “smash traditional gender roles”. For women, that meant an equal opportunity to compete in education and the workplace, career considerations in addition to/instead of family considerations. “Women’s Liberation”, as it was styled back then, sought to overturn the idea that a woman’s place was in the home in a larger “man’s world.”

What feminism didn’t understand was that overturning “traditional gender roles” didn’t necessarily mean that while Mommy went to the office, Daddy stayed home and cooked dinner. While being a career woman may have seemed the polar opposite of being a homemaker to those women, they did not appreciate that when you speak of overturning “traditional gender roles” to men, the result didn’t mean taking off a tie and putting on an apron.

It meant the choice between shouldering the responsibility of raising a family or . . . not.

Feminism never intended to get rid of marriage, it just wanted a better, more advantageous deal for women. Early feminists couldn’t escape their own idealistic myopia long enough to realize the sophisticated interplay of gender relations was at stake. No one thought that men would stop seeking marriage, stop looking to become husbands and fathers. Early feminists figured that if wives started working, husbands would just naturally just start vacuuming, no big whup.

Only . . . big whup.

It wasn’t about the vacuuming or who wore the apron. Those were symptoms. The problem was that when you go around toppling traditional gender roles, you might want to consider the breadth and scope of those roles before you start feeling all revolutionary. After feminism permanently damaged the American family with the first big wave of divorces in the 1970s the result was predictable and inevitable. Children with estranged, distant, or absent fathers grew up in an atmosphere of undisguised contempt not just for Dad, but for all men, and with a suspicion of all things masculine. That colored two generations’ perceptions about the value of “traditional gender roles” and the idealism of feminism.

Girls during that time period were praised when they subverted traditional gender roles – if a girl went to college, got a degree and a career, and made her mark in the business world, few (except for alarmed grandparents) said anything negative about her choices. But when a boy tried to ignore his traditional gender role – not by developing a burning desire to be a househusband, but by nurturing the idea that he didn’t want to be anyone’s husband at all . . . that’s when we started hearing “Man Up!” and “Grow Up!” and all that other misandrist crap. When boys in the 1980s began edging away from their traditional gender roles, people – even feminists – started getting alarmed.

But you cannot argue that ignoring one’s traditional gender role is a virtue in one sex and a vice in the other, not and be intellectually honest. A male’s traditional gender role was not, as the feminists mistakenly thought, to work while his wife was at home. It was the voluntary acceptance of responsibility for the health, safety, and prosperity of his family.  Men went to work not because we enjoyed it so gosh-darn much – those 50s housewives may have thought it was all sexy secretaries and fascinating projects at their husband’s office, but the reality was more grim.  The simple fact is that a man works because that’s what he needs to do to support his family.

In “traditional gender roles”, that work was rewarded with the security, comfort, sex, and social approval implicit in Marriage 1.0. After the 1970s, and the fall of Patriarchy 1.0 (Think of Title IX as the watershed) all four of those rewards were in serious doubt for any given man. Being a good provider and a good husband and father was no longer socially approved, comfort and security were made optional by liberalized divorce laws, and sex . . . well, sex went from being a working husband’s solace to being a tortuous minefield of expectations and potential causes-of-action in a future divorce.

When you take away a man’s ability to find reward in his traditional gender role, you should not be surprised when he eventually decides that the unrewarded sacrifice and investment he makes means that the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze anymore. The first generation of boys to grow up in America as children of divorced parents had little incentive to make the investment in family, and most who did found themselves doing so out of cultural inertia more than compelling economics. Subsequent generations of maturing boys have borne that out.  Marriage, family, children – all those things that the original feminists felt would just naturally always be there as the context in which they could revolutionize – were not only no longer compelling drives in a man’s life, they weren’t even particularly appealing anymore.

The crux of the issue is concise: Why the hell should we, as men, concern ourselves with a system that has evolved to uniformly punish us for doing what we are told we are supposed to do? If the reversal of gender roles for women means putting career first and family second, then for men the reversal is to put themselves first and put family . . . on hold indefinitely. Because despite what feminism claimed, men and women are fundamentally different in how we perceive and view our world; our values are different and our goals are different. Once you take the idea of family and children out of the equation as a realistic end-goal for a man, then what’s left is . . .


And that’s what brings us here today. Puerarchy is, technically, “rule by boys”. It’s a term I coined (or read somewhere and stole) to describe the evolution of male values and masculine goals toward a more selfish, self-oriented and unashamedly masculine perspective. Taking a cue from feminism, the Puerarchy has abandoned its traditional gender role utterly. Instead of looking for a good first wife and thinking about career achievements the Puerarchy has turned its back on the serious idea of marriage and family in their youth. And that’s a good thing.

I speak from the perspective of a happily married father, which may sound incongruous. I’ve never been divorced, never had a bitter custody battle, never paid alimony. I chose well. But I’ve watched the men around me suffer and fall from one attempt at happiness with a woman after another. With a few gallant exceptions, they came away from the experience embittered, embarrassed, discouraged and disgusted. And more and more, I’ve noted, men have quit returning to the well of their dashed hopes and sought solace instead with the pursuit of their own pleasures and interests.

That includes videogames. That includes porn. That includes easy chicks and internet prostitution and anonymous Craigslist hookups. That includes pizza delivery, 24 hour gyms, Sportscenter, auto shows, gun shows, and Civil War re-enactments. That includes anime and comic books and larping and beer. Oh, dear gods, it includes a lot of beer.

You see, folks, this is what feminism didn’t count on: boys picking up their ball (the one the feminists let us keep) and going home. We aren’t playing anymore. The hell of feminist marriage and a feminist workplace has little appeal for most men, and the smart ones are opting out of the whole sorry mess entirely. Those are the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), fellas who have made the deliberate decision not to marry (or to marry only under very specific circumstances to a highly vetted woman).

You’ll find these guys living out lives of rugged individualism, teaching English in third world nations while banging everything in a skirt, spending their youth catching waves or working on their vertical leap, hunting fishing, fighting and fucking as they damn well please. They have opted out of “traditional gender roles” to the extent that they do not feel obligated in the slightest to consider becoming some woman’s future ex-husband.

Those MGTOW who do marry often find and marry women who wholeheartedly support “traditional gender roles” (as I did), usually women from cultures unaffected by feminism or genuinely repulsed by what it has become. The fact is that some men just like to be married under the right circumstances. And with the advent of the Red Pill Marriage, the Male Action Plan, and learning how to successfully Game your wife, that’s possible once again. But unless you can find a Red Pill woman with whom to share your life, you’re going to be shit outta luck.

So what do you do if you can’t find a worthy woman to be your wife, and you don’t have the drive and ambition to go someplace where they don’t speak your language and the plumbing is medieval?

You do what you damn well please. That’s the essence of the Puerarchy. Members enjoy a lack of social responsibility, obligation and guilt when it comes to their lives. It is, as of this moment, cheaper and easier for a single young man to live a life he enjoys on his own than ever before. A cheap apartment, a big screen TV, a computer, a game system, and local food delivery are the only prerequisites for this course of action; the “bachelor’s life” can get really cheap, if you set your mind to it and your tastes are flexible. Depending on your employment, prospects, and your ambition you can make your lair lavish or crude, but either way it is yours, untainted with feminine sensibilities or feminine guilt.

I know a lot of Puerarchs, some by design, most by default. And I know a lot of women who shake their heads, mystified, when they hear guys talking about life plans that include a tour of all the pro-sports Halls of Fame or the bait-and-tackle shop they want to run someday . . . but no mention of their future wife and children.

“Why are these guys so into their computers and sports?” these ladies ask, confounded. “Why aren’t they asking us out and asking to marry us?”

They aren’t being facetious, fellas, they genuinely are confused. They don’t understand why you won’t “take a chance on love” and hitch your star to the first decent (their idea of decent) woman to come along.  That’s how you call them on the Shit Test that is feminism.  While they’ve spent their lives overturning traditional gender roles, the moment you start doing so they panic. Making the mistake of thinking that dudes think just like women, they don’t understand why you aren’t in a hurry to pair up, marry off, and settle down. Hell, you guys aren’t even willing to move in together, half the time. What the hell is wrong with you?

That question is the one that looms over this split. “What the hell is wrong with you?” is the feminist go-to answer for any dude they see who isn’t conforming to their ideas of what menfolk should be doing, which is usually providing for some woman or other. It’s male shaming at its most basic if most innocuous.  It calls into question not just your masculine preogative to determine your own destiny, it questions your judgement over just what that destiny should entail.  Most women, particularly feminists, absolutely loathe the idea of a man making his way in the world without the benefit and expense of a woman’s guidance over his life. The instinct to pair-off eligible menfolk to “quality” single women they know is almost irresistible to most women.

It’s not a moral failing, as some would see it, it’s a product of their biology, as the esteemed Athol Kay terms it, their “Body Agenda”: pairing you off with a lesser female reduces competition in the SMP, improves her position in the Female Social Matrix, and gives her a smug feeling of satisfaction that she has “brought love into the world” by her matchmaking. It’s not a moral failing . . . but that doesn’t mean you have to play. Or should. Consider it an institutionalized biological Shit Test . . . and the proper response to any Shit Test is to stand up to it.  That’s what the Puerarchy is.

If I could (and who knows, I might) I would write and issue a “Fully Informed Bridegrooms’ Guide” to spell out exactly what the pitfalls and perils of matrimony are in our society, demonstrating with graph and chart what most of us already suspect: marriage 2.0 is not in a man’s best interest. It is institutionally stacked against him. Barring extraordinary circumstances and a phenomenal woman (rare but not extinct), planning on settling down before you’re 30 should be considered a triumph of optimism over experience.

We few – we determined few – who do roll those dice, no matter how the odds look, do so because we have made a commitment to our families that rivals the determination of a Bull Alpha to make CEO or a Bear Alpha to make Colonel. We have voluntarily left the happy, testosterone-laden environment of the Puerarchy for the rugged life of husband and father. We’re not to be pitied, we’re not to be envied, we’re just pursuing our masculine imperative in a very specific and directed way. We are the new Patriarchy, the Patriarchy 2.0, and we are in a very real way dependent upon and valuable to the Puearchy. Indeed, we can be considered an extension of it.

Simply put, the reason why the Puerarchy in all of its riotous Girls Gone Wild glory is so valuable to the Patriarchy 2.0 is because it acts as a screening mechanism for the near-mythical Woman of Quality. The future Outstanding Husbands and Word’s Best Dads look remarkably similar to the future Chronic Alcoholics and Unrepentant Gamers when in their larval forms. Women who have a consistently difficult time detecting between the two are generally poor marriage prospects. By pumping and dumping every woman you can during your Puerarchy you help detect and reveal character issues and other traits of a future ex-wife long before you are inexorably entwined in her DNA.

That sounds crude and nasty to a lot of women . . . I hope. That’s the point. The worse the behavior of the Puerarchy, the quicker and clearer the reveal. And by mastering good Puerarch behavior, a future Wolf Alpha family man – the current gold standard of the SMP – can successfully hide among his Puerach brethren until such time as he should reveal himself to a Woman of Quality. And when the nascent Prince Charming finally does decide to begin the long, slow vetting process with his future queen, you can bet that his Puerarch pals will have a role to play there, too.

The Puerarchy beckons for us all, and presents an alluring alternative to the drudgery of matrimony and parenthood. It’s the secret treehouse of the Lost Boys, the primal chaos of Lord of the Flies, the camaraderie of a Call of Duty team, the visceral thrill of a nudie bar, the sublime masculine sophistication of the Most Interesting Man In the World’s country villa, the Temple of Doom, Valhalla, and Hooters all rolled into one, where the beer is cold and the nameless chicks are hot.

It’s important to us married men precisely because it does present a pleasant alternative to our daily struggle . . . and it’s always there. Like cable sports or internet porn, the Puerarchy is eternal, 24:7.

The Puerarchy lets us know we aren’t going to be “worse off” if we’re single – far from it. And far from the Patriarchy resenting and resisting the Puerarchy, the wiser among us realize that the Puerarchy makes being married a privilege, not a sentence. When your wife knows you you’re just one text away from an all-night Texas Hold’em-a-thon, then your willingness to watch Glee reruns or other emasculating shit on her behalf becomes a far bigger deal.

Conversely, the Puerarchy should not shy away from the Alpha Dads of Patriarchy 2.0. We’re your brothers, and we can help. We’re who you hold out as beacons of stability to potential girlfriends, proof that not only are there decent dudes out there, but that you know, admire, and desire to emulate them. If you can fake that, you can get laid by the dozen. We’re also good at baling you out of jail, providing character witnesses at trial, and having a permanent address while you go backpacking through the Amazon.

And lastly, we’re proof that male-female relations can work . . . and we’re repositories of how it works. Masculine perspective is enriched by marriage, and while it ain’t for everyone that perspective can inform the decisions of even the most confirmed bachelor. Continuing relationships between Puerarchs and Patriarchs are vital to the pursuit of masculinity for both; as the feminists know when men get together . . . we’re always up to something.

So enjoy, my brothers, the wonderful world of masculine bounty that our post-industrial civilization has provided you. Drink in the beer, smell the nachos, listen to the sweet hum of your videogame console, and prepare yourselves to bang anything that gets within range.

But stay the fuck away from my daughter.  We don’t want any unpleasantness.  I’ve already got the hole dug.  That saves time.

That’s one of those pieces of patriarchal wisdom y’all might want to hold on to.

Ian Ironwood is a professional porn reviewer and author of The Manosphere: A New Hope For Masculinity, Alpha Moves, Playground Rules, The Sky Panthers Argosy (fiction), and The Gentleman’s Guide To Picking Up Women. He lives at Stately Ironwood Manor somewhere in the Land O’ Cotton under his real name with Mrs. Ironwood and the three little Ironwoods in a highly successful 20 year long Red Pill marriage. Envy me, bitches.

Share Button

Ian Ironwood

f anybody is interested in the manosphere and the (loosely defined) “movement” that’s taking place, I highly recommend Ian Ironwood’s book “The manosphere – A New Hope For Masculinity” which you can grab here on AMAZON! Check out Ian Ironwood’s blog HERE.

More Posts - Website


  1. Excellent article. It inspired me. I mean that. As I was reading through it I got the idea to start a website based on men of the puearchy meeting up in meat space. I’m curious if anyone thinks it would be successful.

    • redpillschool
      redpillschool /

      I know there’s a manosphere meet up happening in Vegas soon.. I don’t remember the details though…

  2. Shenpen /

    >The simple fact is that a man works because that’s what he needs to do to support his family.

    I don’t understand this part. Why, does the single man gets the bills paid by fairies? I personally never saw a middle road – moderate amount of work, lots of free time – between being a careerist and being homeless. Maybe this depends on where you live, but I have seen even dedicated careerists struggling to get by.

    Year by year I am seeing more social stratification, there are a few who make it and more and more who just struggle to survive because they are competing with machines or workers in low wage places.

    There are some who can make a living off blogging or small online businesses but this is not really a strategy for (hundreds of) millions of people.

    OK I don’t live in America, you see many Steve Pavlina type people in America who can make a living off small online businesses. But on the other Reddit is chock full of young Americans complaining that even with a college degree they only have fast food jobs. The point is, they will break out from that if they are worth anything, but once they broken out from that they will be hard working careerists out of fear of falling back.

    I cannot see a middle ground: I am either employeed in the careerist, traditional sense or basically unemployable. Who the hell needs a 20 hour part time accountant in the long run? But everybody needs an ERP consultant who knows software, accounting, reporting and manages them all into one functional system. But that is 50 hours a week.

    So ultimately it is not just families that make men work hard and have little free time but the economic realities.

    • I should have qualified that or stated it more clearly: “The simple fact is that a man works to his fullest potential and with the most incentive because that’s what he needs to do to support his family.”

      Single men work. Single men achieve. Single men prosper, even. But nothing more consistently brings out the dedication to occupational achievement in men than the responsibility for a family.

      • “The simple fact is that a man works to his fullest potential and with the most incentive because that’s what he needs to do to support his family.”

        That’s exactly why I haven’t worked to my fullest potential…no family to support, and though I make less than my married friends I have the most disposable income, most savings, and don’t have to ask for permission/bargain to spend money.

        The saddest thing about the modern woman is they expect to marry a man whose already earning a significant income, and are unwilling to build the marital finances from scratch together…so since their neither emotionally or financially invested in a marriage it’s easier to walk away from it.

        Aside from not being a stripper or hooker, a man doesn’t care what job or amount of money a woman earns, but good luck to the low-wage earner man in attracting a women who feels the same way…the rarest of the rare quality woman.

  3. dennis /

    I married a woman from a different country and NOT raised here in the U.S.. I can honestly say that feminism hasn’t touched a lot of countries like it has here. My wife is a career woman and STILL does her best to be a good wife and mom. Honestly, though, there are a lot of jobs NOW that women can do just equally as well as men. Technology has seen to that. However, I believe that SOMEBODY, whereas possible, needs to stay home and be what I call a “parent root” for the kids to come home and see every day. It is tragic when you look at your children and they smile. Only to smile like one of your care givers and not like either of the parents.
    On a final note, if you want to keep a keeper. Then be a keeper yourself.

    • “However, I believe that SOMEBODY, whereas possible, needs to stay home and be what I call a “parent root” for the kids to come home and see every day.”
      I think both parents can fill the role partially for it to still work. My dad works full-time but he always left for work after I went to school so I could eat breakfast with him and have someone to talk to in the mornings. My mom would leave earlier for her part-time work, but be home by 2pm so when I came home from school at 2:30 she’d be there for me and we’d eat lunch together and help me with my homework (I struggled with English and German for a while). My dad would be back for 7pm and we’d all eat dinner together and do things as a family.

  4. Emma /

    You should probably research some feminist literature before you critique a well-established social movement with real goals, including but not limited to: human dignity, an end to poverty, racial equality, immigrant rights, egalitarian economic structure, cultural sensitivity, and a basic respect for all human beings.

    • misterzed /

      Emma, thats a very loaded agenda, I am not sure then if feminists even have their priorities straight. Seems like a wishlist more than a plan.

    • Buster /

      Basic respect for all human beings except men, apparently.

    • Where does “male genocide” enter into that? Because that’s become a frequent policy balloon of Third Wave feminism for over a decade, now. When feminism went from being about equality to being about feminine privilege and the elimination of the male from the species, it quit being about “basic respect for all human beings”.

      Since I was a Women’s Studies major, I’d wager I’ve read more feminist literature than you have. Feminism is ripe for critique, harsh critique, for what it has done to men and masculinity. If you don’t believe that, then perhaps it is you who need to read more feminist literature. Particularly the pieces describing how men are intrinsically wrong and an unnecessary element in human biology. They’re out there. And by supporting “feminism” in general, you are giving these genocidal thought-leaders the cover they need to continue their anti-male, misandrist crusade.

  5. Ms.Archer /

    The subject matter here is crude at best and some confusion on the part regarding feminism. I’ll spare you the lecture, but a book you should definitely read is Ride the Tiger by Julius Evola. Much of what you advocate is similar to his ideas. Except for him it was the materialism, liberalism, egalitarianism, democracy that cause him to split with the world.

    • “Except for him it was the materialism, liberalism, egalitarianism, democracy that cause him to split with the world.”

      You overlook that those ‘ism’s generally result from feminine ideals.

  6. Nick Danger /

    Wow, I thought I was the only one. 47 years old, never been married, no kids. I guess I might be luckier than most guys, I can still pass for 30-ish and I have very little problem picking up chicks in their 20’s. But that has never been my motivation for avoiding marriage and family.

    Over the decades I’ve watched my friends lives ruined by villainous women, who have exploited the legal system to destroy their lives.

    I understand perfectly WHY it happens – a woman’s love turns to hate when the man loses sexual interest in her, which is inevitable. To give the woman legal recourse to shit all over the man’s life at that point is absolute insanity. Of course she’s going to do it.

    My poor old pals – destitute, deep in debt, driving shit cars, living in tiny condos, losing their hair from the endless stress of child support, nagging, and lack of any legal recourse to change anything about their situation – the constant threat of jail hanging over their heads if they lose their job, even through no fault of their own.

    My parents and grandparents, well, they are from the Baby Boomer Generation and the Greatest Generation, respectively. Parents married happily 48 years, grandparents married happily for 70 years as of May ’13. And it’s no mystery why this worked out for them, if you know my mother and grandmother. They are both of a mind to submit to the will of their husbands. No one could possibly point out any satisfaction they’ve lost in life by playing their traditional gender role, they are content, happy, and wealthy, with an appropriate amount of control over family affairs – an amount they have earned.

    I know, for a fact, that I’ll never find a woman in modern society like this. I don’t even try, and never have, not since my teens, when I was a bit more naive and had fantasies of some great romance in my life.

    It’s no coincidence that the decline of Western civilization and the advent of women’s rights are occurring at the exact same juncture of history.

    D’salute, Puerarchy. I’m down, always have been. I’m just happy to see I’m not alone in my thinking on this matter.

    • bevreally /

      change the way you see the world and the world you see will change accordingly. Have faith

  7. “While people will submit to suffering which may hit anyone, they will not so easily submit to suffering which is the result of the decision of authority. It may be bad to be just a cog in an impersonal machine; but it is infinitely worse if we can no longer leave it, if we are tied to our place and to the superiors who have been chosen for us. Dissatisfaction of everybody with his lot will inevitably grow with the consciousness that it is the result of deliberate human decision.” — F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. 1944, The University of Chicago Press.

  8. Raphanobrassica /

    I like your theory but dislike your preaching.

  9. Batou Kovacs /
  10. Helen /

    So you’re promoting ‘pump and dump’ but not for your super special daughter? Every woman out there is some man’s daughter.

    The lifestyle you’re promoting, that valhalla with nude nameless chicks to fuck anytime? There’s nothing to stop your daughter being one of those girls one day. Or what is your aspiration for your daughter? Clearly not to be a CEO or pursue any other dreams she may have. It seems you want her to be a subservient wife who plays into traditional gender roles – does she have no say in that matter?

    I don’t know how old your daughter is but would be interested to know her views on your books.

    • Actually, there is. She has an attentive father who is ensuring that she doesn’t have the daddy issues, broken home, and poisoned ideals of third-wave feminism that makes other girls vulnerable to Game.

      I will educate her on the biological and reproductive differences between men and women, and what that means for her reproductive strategy. I will arm her with the knowledge and the guidance to choose a good man early, and then help her with the vetting process until she can comfortably raise her family. And then I will continue my oversight as she produces grandchildren and enjoys her life. Somehow I think she’ll find that far more fulfilling than being a corporate drone with little hope of happiness.

      Actually, she’s 11, and she can think of no worse fate in the world than being a soulless, purposeless corporate CEO who never sees her family. She thinks being a mom and wife would be far preferable to that. I think you’ll find that crops up among her peers more than you realize — at least the ones who do not come from divorced homes or single-parent homes. And no, since she’s 11, she doesn’t get to read my Manosphere books until she’s older.

      The rest of your daughters have to fend for themselves. Mine has a very watchful Daddy protecting her, and I do so without shame or regret, as part of my duty to her as her father. But that’s part of Patriarchy 2.0: guiding your children away from the obvious dangers to their long-term happiness, and giving them everything that they need to live fulfilling lives of purpose. Corporate titles just don’t enter into that.

      • RedKnight /

        I do not have any children, but this seems like the best advice to instill in young girls today. A lot of the promiscuous sex that we see in society today is a result of an absent father; regardless if that is the fathers fault or not. When that is coupled with laws to support, shows to promote, and groups to support women who have children out of wedlock; it is no wonder that society unknowingly say, “It’s okay. We’ll take care of you” Then the lady falls into a web of limitation dictated by the child she never meant to have. Not to say that she does not love that child, but she will never get to embrace her full femininity because of the overload in parenting.

  11. A truly thought-provoking read.

    Self-focus ideally would be more than self-indulgence (video games and take-out = disintegration of health). Self-improvement, developing skills like how to cook awesome meals for yourself and others, developing character and being an interesting person. This applies to both genders. Not just to bring something better to the table if or when it’s time to marry, but just to BE better, and happier. Of course the video game mention was just an example, but socially isolated tech-focused sedentary life is becoming a… huge… problem! As is convenience food, a real plague of modern life.

    What we call feminism pretty much started when consumeristic/materialistic post-war culture took full swing– really isn’t feminism just a symptom of that social breakdown, not a cause of it? Women responded, just as men responded to changing culture and propaganda. Does it not benefit those who stand to profit, to have women and not just men spending money on things they don’t need, to reject the idea of family, taking care of parents, and community involvement, the shift from long-term full time jobs to part-time work and outsourcing and expendable labour? It was after all men who told women they needed those nifty appliances to do the house work for them and that such work was beneath them, and the advent of fast-food culture, and that breast milk was bad and to use canned milk instead, and to go shopping, shopping, shopping.

    Both men and women are encouraged by modern culture to be selfish and egotistical, dumb and shallow. Conform and spend. Yes, young and not so young men, should have the freedom to pursue their lives and not in accordance to any agenda of ‘what women think they should want’. This includes male sexuality, porn, and all that fun stuff, however ideas like ‘pump and dump’ are rather sociopathic– regardless of gender of pumper and pumpee. As is any behaviour that exploits others, devoid of empathy, as if they are objects to be used and discarded.

    Where in the puerarchy movement, ‘pre-patriarchy’, do boys learn that they are the brothers of girls, even perhaps misguided girls they don’t at all agree with? When he doesn’t want to be roped into the father-role, then what is the role of a brother? Girls and boys *want and need* each other to some extent at least, as do men and women and mothers and fathers. What is the code of conduct for a young man towards his sisters, as well as his fellow bros, and elders?

    A boy learns to influence his sisters, learns how to be influential in general… A boy becomes a man during the course of his relationships with his sisters, and the girls are hopefully raised under (positive) influence of father, and become women with the boys she meets out in the world… These same puerarachal boys, right… so always there is a responsibility, just not the BIGGEST one (fatherhood, marriage) so early on. Not necessarily anyway.

    Never made sense for men to be so afraid of women, to put her on a pedestal she doesn’t want to be on, to give her all his power and then complain she’s run away with it! I truly hope boys and men find their way to being empowered, where needed, and not at the expense of women, or by bashing/hating/hurting them. Take your power, boys, be autonomous and self-determining, and please be kind to your sisters! 🙂

    • Sis, I appreciate your thoughtful response. And some of your points are well-taken; I see you are trying to both acknowledge the problem faced by boys and agree that it’s not just them – that’s a great start. First, I would argue that industrial feminism wasn’t so much a “social breakdown” as a “social transformation” from an agricultural to an industrial economy. It sucked, but those changes were inevitable. First wave feminism, for all of its tumult, was necessary in order for us to make the transition to a non-agrarian culture. It wasn’t a concentrated attack “just ’cause”, it was a response to serious social and economic issues.

      Second, labeling the earnest pursuit of young men as “rather sociopathic” fails to consider the profound role sexuality has in a young man’s life and effectively acts as a judgment on their values. Yes, hook-up culture is shredding traditional mating patterns and brought chaos to the sexual marketplace . . . but a lot more dudes are getting laid now before they settled down or enjoy a life of robust bachelorhood. Sexually satisfied men are not “rather sociopathic”, they are just pursuing the male sexual dream to its logical conclusion.

      Third, your point about sisters is well-taken. A sister can be a boy’s ally or his enemy, and often is both at various points. A Puerarch’s duty to his sister should, ideally, be based both on his relationship with her and her reproductive choices. If she decides she wants a family and decides to pursue that, then he has a duty to help her find and vet a decent man for her to do that with, and then help support them as much as he can.

      But if his sister decides to devote her life to being a corporate warrior, he has as much duty to her as he does a brother. That is, helping her move once every few years, rescuing her from the side of the road if she breaks down, loaning her up to fifty bucks if financially possible, and helping her get laid as needed. That’s it.

      Why the dichotomy? Because a Puerarch’s sister usually comes down either heavily in favor of him or heavily against him, usually the latter. The same forces that push a boy toward the Puerarchy are pushing his sister toward corporate serfdom and the illusory “achievement” of the masculine-oriented business world. That usually causes the sister in question to resent her brother for not having the same ambition and drive to appease the parents as she does. But then she doesn’t face the same level of expectation that her parents have for him.

      Sound familiar folks? High-achieving sister, low-achieving brother with huge potential but no ambition? Look for a weak-willed father (or absent or non-existent) in the background and a strong-willed, driven mother running the household. In fact, if the brother in question has a decent father, the Puerarchy will hold less allure for him in the first place.

      So you might love your sister, but chances are if you are really swinging the Puerarchy lifestyle she’s going to be disgusted by your life and tell you so . . . repeatedly. How you are “wasting your life” with your passions and pursuits because your values and hers differ. How you are “lazy and unambitious” because you refuse to accept the burden of handicaps imposed on a dude trying to fight his way in the corporate world. How you are “crude and sexist” when you’re just being a sexually-active dude. If your sister is a modern feminist, then you can count on a high level of acrimony and competition. Most modern sisters have nothing but scorn for their Puerarch brothers.

      If yours doesn’t . . . cherish her. As Sis says, be kind to her. A few good sisters out there are more willing to understand their brothers’ dilemma: how can you possibly try to achieve and prosper in a world where you are blamed by default for all of its ills? They understand that the balance has shifted heavily away from their brothers, and they don’t like that any more than they do.

      And finally, if you want to see boys and men prosper, then understand that we do so only through getting stronger and more masculine. These fellas aren’t going to change their ways unless it’s in their interest to do so. And right now the prospects for marriage, family, and fatherhood suck scissors for a young man. A couple of years hitchhiking through Europe or touring with a band or surfing his way across the Caribbean is actually a wiser investment for a young man than college and corporate life now. Trying to compete in an environment where they are never allowed to win is futile and frustrating, and most of them know it. If they’re smart, they’ll use that time to make themselves stronger men . . . but if they spend it immersed in cheap beer, bongwater and video games, paying for sex or hooking up or just watching porn rather than take the risk of a “real relationship that’s leading somewhere”, I can’t blame them.

  12. Mariana /

    I don’t really like the whole “the rest of your daughters can fend for themselves” thing either—If you say that the feminist movement is responsible for permanent breakdown of the American family, then you should acknowledge that means that there are an excess of people in the world today who don’t have ANYONE watching out for them, and who might be open to, and benefit from being exposed to the type of education that a good man can provide whether he’s her father or not. You would want another man to step in if you weren’t around if your daughter were about to do something you wouldn’t want her to do, wouldn’t you? Why can’t that be part of your Alpha Dad code?

    My father died when I still thought boys had cooties. So, fuck me because cancer took the man who was supposed to protect me out of the picture? Does that mean I get to blame my dad for every idiot I’ve ever slept with? Does that mean I’m not a woman of quality because I went to college before looking for a husband—because I was TERRIFIED that even if I found one I might end up defenseless if something happened to him? I don’t think so.

    Why didn’t I try to find a man to marry as soon as possible? I couldn’t. To be fair, that could be because I’m not that good looking (lol), but I did try because I wanted that. I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom and raise my kids and take care of my man. But all the guys I know were chasing prettier and easier girls, headed off to college, and NOT thinking about marriage.

    Don’t forget that feminism has screwed over women who think that fulfilling their biological and social roles is perfectly awesome.

    For those of us who are a little disgusted with the implications that “feminism” has had, we should know that this all basically started with selfishness—a bunch of people not considering that what they wanted could harm men, women, children, and ultimately society. I’d like to think that any man is protective of his daughter and would do his best to protect her and guide her in a good direction, but saying that no one else is your problem is just as selfish and short-sighted as deciding that your husband and kids need to suffer because you want to fuck off your responsibility to the larger picture and go back to college.

    This whole feminism thing went south because it turned into a fight about who was more important—how about we knock it off? For those of us who want to see the American Family recover, help with the entire clean-up, not just what you’re afraid might seep onto your doorstep.

    At least do it for the guy who worked hard, cared for his wife and family, and suffered intensely so he could try and stay with them, but couldn’t. My father was the kind of guy that wouldn’t have thought twice about protecting your daughter because he believed that part of a man’s responsibility was to the world around him as well.

  13. annie h. /

    “I know a lot of Puerarchs, some by design, most by default. And I know a lot of women who shake their heads, mystified, when they hear guys talking about life plans that include a tour of all the pro-sports Halls of Fame or the bait-and-tackle shop they want to run someday . . . but no mention of their future wife and children.”

    I don’t know if I’m some weirdo, but I’m in long term relationship (8 years) with a guy who’s into gaming, comic books, beer and boardgames. I don’t mind. Actually I’m myself into some of those things. We’ve never had any fights or discussions over gender roles. Though I guess we’re not that traditional.

    You claim that women are normally shocked and dismissive, when they hear a man dreams of stuff that is not family centered. C’mon that is soul crushing and inconsiderate if women around these guys do that. Why would anyone consider settling for a person who thinks their interests are worthless? I would never marry a guy who’s dismissive over my grand travel plans, so I kind of understand why some men avoid long-term relationships. Because they don’t want to risk their care-free lifestyle and sell their soul?

    Why should men aspire to find a wife and start a family, if they truly do not want to do that? I’ve heard and witnessed quite a many stories from older men and women, who have honestly admitted that they got and stayed married because they had to. I don’t see the happiness there. The men who worked their asses off for their family didn’t always do it with pleasure. The stress of having to provide a living for your wife and kids has never suited everyone. Staying at home with children has never suited all females. In some cases, both parents work, and that’s the reason why the marriage stays together, if they’re the type that can’t live without certain amount of personal freedom.

    Having a successful marriage does not boil down to adhering/not adhering to traditional sex roles, but finding a person who you tolerate and who in return tolerates your whims. The problem with many men is that they deliberately choose women who make them unhappy. Those men themselves choose spouses who are bossy, nitpicking, selfish and demanding – and divorcing that type of people is hell of expensive. But the opposite of bossy isn’t necessarily submissive either.

  14. My Rebuttal to “Welcome to The Puerarchy. This is what the Hell is Wrong with You”

    The notion that feminism was even the primary reason why divorce rates skyrocketed in the 1970’s, when in fact it was a confluence of events that began earlier in the 20th Century, is beyond tunnel vision, it’s outright biased.

    “Traditional gender roles” had already shifted twice in the Century, during the First and Second World Wars. Women went to work in the factories and men went to war. Women were more-or-less forced back into their previous roles after both wars, but there was a backlash both times. Women got the vote not long after WWI and the “flapper” turned her nose up at “traditional gender roles.” Somehow despite this, babies still got born and raised in time for the next war. After WWII, the U.S. entered the Cold War, and women were forced backwards again, but it only lasted about 18 years before it fell apart once more.

    The disillusionment after “Camelot” fell in 1963 and America’s increasing involvement in Vietnam created a generation of anti-establishment hippies, who hated everything the “old school” stood for.

    The advent of reliable female birth control put women in charge of their own conception for the first time in history.

    Not all feminists went along with the “rewriting of the social contract” in the 1970’s. Quite a few were angered by the more militant elements of the movement and the Equal Rights amendment failed to gain a majority. Women in many fields still do not get paid as much as men for the same work.

    Women didn’t emasculate men, they rose up to compliment him, and for a lot of men, it was too much. They had been used to being in charge, and they didn’t want to give up the power, even to share it.

    The whole “men need room to be men” without feeling emasculated is so tired. If you need to dominate a woman and “…put her in her place” in order to feel “masculine,” and feel lesser when a woman doesn’t demure, then that’s not on her, it’s on YOU.

  15. MGTOW4ever /

    Love the article. It is about the most perfect theory I have read about MGTOW.

    I am a result of Patriarchy 1.0.

    I was destined to be a MGTOW since birth. I love it.
    No responsibilities, I get supper anxious any time some one tries to tie me down.

    I traveled, I seen things most people will never see or experience.

    Screw having a family and kids as I see them as a Prison and worse a death sentence.

    The longer women delay marriage the longer us MGTOW and Puerarchs can teach you men to completely abandon expectations and revel in freedom. I guess you can say Puerarchs are a causality or a side effect of Feminism.

    To the ladies that post in this thread all I got to say is that you made your own bed now your going to have to sleep in it.

    Women have always had the ability to congregate and be a monolithic vehicle. This was a huge boon to getting things changed in society. But just like in the real world the captain is responsible for their crew. The thing about MGTOW is that we are not centralized its a kin to Peer 2 Peer protocols like bittorrent.. You can kill one node or sink one ship but new ones will appear or just the sheer amount of them will simply overwhelm you.

    MGTOW are not interested in Change because
    1. We know we don’t matter
    2. Can’t fight Female Entitlement.
    3. No one cares about Men’s problems.
    4. We are deterministic and we make our own futures.

    All MGTOW have to do is NOTHING. That is what scares the crap out of feminists and women alike. We don’t have to lift a finger to cause change. We can enjoy our, games, porn, internet, easy women, etc.. We don’t need to work hard, in return we don’t pay high taxes. We do as little as possible to have an easy life.

    The only people that make any change happen are women. They hold the key to everything. If they get sick of we are alone maybe then they will finally address the issue men are having. Until then female solipsism will continue this single road of MEMEMEMEME I am the eternal victim.

    Their is a point where men will say we DON’T CARE, do it your self you are empowered, you are an adult, you have two hands shovel your own shit.

    So my question to women which is what do you fear more.. The Feminist boogie man that you’ve been told that potentially all men are or Being alone for the rest of your life.

    Either way I don’t give a crap, I have been emancipated from the prison of Patriarch err Feminism.

    Ladies enjoy your stay in the Land of Equality I hope your stay is as miserable and horrid it has been for men for countless millennia.


  1. Interesting read on why men are choosing to opt out of marriage - Gun and Game - Firearms Forums - [...] read on why men are choosing to opt out of marriage Ironwood Speaks: Welcome To The…

Leave a Reply

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

6 − = five