A Tale of Two Patriarchs, a Manosphere Patriarch and a Practical Patriarch

Once upon a time in Alaska, there lived two men who felt called by God to go live out in a cabin in the woods with their huge families.  One was a patriarch in the manosphere mold, one was very much not.

The manospherian patriarch called himself Papa Pilgrim.

He married a teenager who was about 20 years younger than he was.

He had 15 children with her.

He required that wife and children all refer to him as “Lord”.

He used “dread”, both metaphorical and literal.  This is, apparently, deemed perfectly Christian and proper for husbands to do by manospherians.

He did not submit to any male authority, religious or otherwise, assuring his family that his authority was ultimate and needed no constraint.

They lived in the woods on hundreds of acres, the children recording music and touring, the entire family developing impressive homesteading and survival skills as well.

As time went on, despite those skills, the family could not make it through the harsh Alaskan winters reliably, so the manospherian patriarch had his family go spend a particularly harsh winter with another very large family (nine children).  I may have left a couple of things out.  Nothing that would be considered bad in the manosphere of course.

As it turns out, the manospherian patriarch ended up in jail because the practical patriarch heading the family of nine felt it was his duty to subject the manosphere patriarch to the rule of law for the manosphere patriarch’s mistreatment of his family.

The practical patriarch also raised self-sufficient children, was openly and clearly the buck-stopping head of his household and lived a simple, back to the land kind of life with his wife and nine children.  Some of those children even married the children of the manosphere patriarch.  But the practical patriarch regularly sought his close to his own age wife’s input and her advice and counsel were a big part of his ultimate decision to bring external authority into the situation.  The manosphere patriarch’s children were astonished that a husband and wife would have private time with each other to reconnect and be close as a couple, they were used to such private time being a sign of their father’s displeasure with their mother.

Their mother did not stand by her man, she stood by her children, who came to forgive her slowly and painfully over time.  The manospherian patriarch died alone in jail, unrepentant.

 

 

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “A Tale of Two Patriarchs, a Manosphere Patriarch and a Practical Patriarch”

  1. Sounds reasonable to me.

    I have been that wife in Alaska with a sweet hubby who values his wife,mostly on account of the fact that he has no desire to haul all the firewood himself and the winters are long and cold and you need someone to keep you warm. Hence symbiosis, love, and cooperation were born. How in the heck did men ever manage to twist that around into dread, authoritarianism, and sexual abuse?! I means seriously, WTH?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve never heard of this guy and his story. But I really would like to know if and how exactly Christian teachings contributed to the mindset that resulted in abuse. Christians keep on telling me that you can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, but if you don’t understand what got the bathwater so dirty, you run the risk of repeating the same incident all over again to different degrees. In my area, there’s an ‘off the grid’ family that used to live in a shack – without proper walls and insulation, without electricity and running water, and without access to medical care and education – it was a recipe for trouble. The state has stepped in separated the kids from their parents but there were so many they were put in three different homes. The parents have done nothing but spout Christian theology from beginning to end – but at least the kids get to sleep in a warm house and in their own beds for the first time.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Can. of. worms, sister TPC! Can. of. worms.

    I don’t have a dog in the age difference hunt as I met my husband when I was 21 and he was 19, and we still never really had a problem with him being able to lead me. Not sure why decades of eldership are required to walk out that dynamic, but..

    I have given the subject some thought as we have a 21-year-old daughter who has always had an old soul and a 20-year-old who has stumbled onto the secret of getting asked out once a week: Get a job at Home Depot! My husband is fine with 7-8 years age difference, but once you hit ten years, he’s going to draw the line. That’s his final answer, LOL.

    To be fair (and I know this was part satire), most men’s sphere writers are far too -classically- liberal, not to mention post modern, to engage in the “Papa Pilgrim” brand of patriarchy.

    I

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Historically speaking, such age differences were very rare. I’ve read statistics and books on women and marriage rates, and the typical age for marriage for your run of the mill young woman was 21. The age increased with wealth, and this was seen with men and women. Men typically married around age 25, making a 4 year difference between their wives.

    I’ve read about the Middle Ages, to the Quakers and early Colonial settlers, to the 20th century. The idea of large age gaps existed in the very wealthy and nobility classes.

    Like

    1. Employment and land availability directly affected who could and couldn’t marry. In Europe, many people remained unmarried due to lower land availability for work. Back in the day, if you couldn’t provide for a family, you couldn’t marry. The same thing for the colonialists in the US, but there was more land and more people married.

      It would surprise many to discover the variety of marriage ages, depending on the time and geography.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I think the manospherian teachings do good for men in that they give a generation of very insecure, very unaware, very self-serving men a new insight on life. Having grown up among boys and men who were basically taught they were worthless wastes of space whose only purpose is tantamount to a turkey-baster, I can see why some of them may need to learn that they have value and power and that it’s not inherently wrong to use their power. But to take every manosphere-accepted teaching to the letter… well, it’d be a complete contradiction to begin with, let alone the trouble it could cause everyone.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am in general agreement with this, as I am not wholly opposed to everything I’ve ever read in the mansophere, and in fact am in hearty agreement with a lot of the diagnoses of the problems created as our culture has become increasingly influenced by feminism. I have concluded that our general problem is one directly tied to our technological progress and comfort.

      Someone reminded me of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and recalling that has made things clearer. Men are very attuned to doing what needs to be done to fulfill those particular needs. Women as well, but to a lesser extent and in a different way, because we’re also concerned with relationships and social security. Now that the vast majority of humanity (particularly in the West) have fulfillment to the point of saturation at the two lowest levels, we are free to navel gaze and languish on the other three levels. I may be wrong, but I tend to see the three upper levels as the kind of things women focus on more and so the culture (including the men) are hyper analyzing these things obsessively and in a feminine way. Which is good for almost no one, frankly.

      That brings me to Amy P’s comment. Our family is right in the middle of the two income brackets she mentioned (well slightly above half way), with one income. Somehow, as our older children entered the teen years, there was no expectation of iPhones, or iPads, or designer clothes or any of the things that supposedly make it harder to make ends meet. If children are taught fro early on that we don’t waste money on luxuries and nonsense for the sake of being “in”, it really isn’t something you have to worry about.

      Our kids went to public high school, and were popular and well liked enough to get voted onto student gov’t positions even though they were a distinct minority on their campuses. Nobody noticed that they didn’t have smart phones or “juicy” splashed across their butts.

      We can train ourselves and our children away from superficial consumption. Except for Marvel and Star Wars movie premiere splurges. Gotta have somethin’. LOL.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Haha, true! Everyone ends up splurging on the odd thing they love, however frugal we try and be. 🙂

        And yes, it goes back to the “prosperity breeds weakness” argument. The idea is that when we have too much, we can afford to let ourselves go, physically, mentally, spiritually, etc, so most people do. When we have too little we take good care of ourselves because we need to stay strong to live from day to day. I like to think there’s a happy medium somewhere, but it’s a rare thing to find.

        Like

      2. I’m convinced there is no happy medium. Until we have the idea of community in action versus a concept, families will do what they have to do. People gotta eat.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. But the money mostly doesn’t go for Ipads and juicywear. It goes for extracurriculars, individual vehicles for suburban and rural teenagers, fees and expenses for class trips, all kinds of explosions in expense in just the last five or ten years.

        Tuition is sometimes required in public school for some programs that would previously have been free.

        Or the public school has some kind of “free” high-quality program, like grade-school Montessori. Only the way to get in is to enroll your kids in a couple of specific Montessori preschools that get 90% of the grade school spots automatically once those kids are the right age. Sure, you can “just apply, it’s open to all!”, but unless you shell out for one of those feeder school spots, you’re very unlikely to get in vs. someone who did .

        Like

        1. I get all that. We had HS band fees (not cheap at all), instruments, wrote tuition checks and bought college text books before the girls landed jobs, etc

          But we did make some decisions regarding what limits we would have in place and how much we were willing to sacrifice in terms of quality of life and financial strain so that I could remain at home with our youngest children.

          Like

        2. Let me add that I am not implying that everyone do what we did. Only pointing out that for families there are a range of choices along a scale if we consider them even for a moment. And ask how much our kids truly need to have a good life. Some kids need things ours didn’t and I concede that.

          Like

          1. But this is the crux of the matter. Unless we go back to the world where everyone has fewer templates for a household (even if it’s different fewer templates in meaningful ways to people from 100 or 1000 years ago, which it totally would be), we will (until the wealth runs out enough to force the issue) keep hitting these shoals of independent choice.

            In point of fact, the kind of inside-baseball stuff I mentioned as hidden expenses even when you public school the kids is the sort of thing that reduces family size because a typical large family of 6-8 (few get larger even among homeschoolers, where they are 20x more common than in the general population) just can’t offer that level of individualization per child without $$$ somewhere in the mix.

            You can’t do it via homeschooling and you can’t do it via public or private school once you have more than 3-5 kids.

            But the sheer amount of real choices out there makes it hard for people to see that some choices have to be explicitly limited for people to accept that they are illusory and not kill themselves pursuing them.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. But this is the crux of the matter. Unless we go back to the world where everyone has fewer templates for a household (even if it’s different fewer templates in meaningful ways to people from 100 or 1000 years ago, which it totally would be), we will (until the wealth runs out enough to force the issue) keep hitting these shoals of independent choice.

              You’re preaching to the choir. I would welcome a system void of this madness, more community based, fewer templates.

              The problem getting there, as you know, is that we are almost all caught in the immediacy of having to choose for our kids’ best interest in the here and now coupled with our current financial and logistical constraints.

              I don’t know that it will get better until the wealth runs out, forcing the issue.

              Like

      4. TPC said:

        “But the money mostly doesn’t go for Ipads and juicywear. It goes for extracurriculars, individual vehicles for suburban and rural teenagers, fees and expenses for class trips, all kinds of explosions in expense in just the last five or ten years.”

        Yes. Or even just for buying a house in a more expensive (and better) school district.

        These days consumer “stuff” is pretty cheap–the expensive stuff is real estate, education (which can be purchased in the form of real estate in a particular district), and medical.

        I have my budget sheet for the month beside me. We split our budget for take home into “basic” expenses (mortgage/property taxes/insurance, school tuition, food, clothes, gas, life insurance, etc.) and “optional” expenses (cleaning help, Christmas, travel, camp/extracurriculars, eating out, yard help, school lunch, etc.). (I know some people would quibble about private school being a basic expense, but as pulling the kids out would involve selling our house and moving, it is basic for us.) Typically, if you add together the basic and the optional expenses, our optional expenses are well under 20% of the whole. We used to feel bad about our lavish lifestyle until we did that math. (I’m excluding charitable giving from discussion for the sake of simplicity.)

        Looking at it slightly differently, the real monsters in the budget are all in the “basics” category. Between the three of them, housing expenses (mortgage/property taxes/insurance), school tuition and grocery store spending consume nearly 2/3 of our take home income. When our youngest child goes to school, those three will consume over 2/3 of our take home income (and it will get much worse for college). Currently, each of those three monsters has crossed over into four digits. My husband arranges the items in order of magnitude, and in the basics category, we go directly from $1100 a month in grocery store spending (food, cleaning supplies, shampoo, lightbulbs, etc.) to $200 a month clothing and shoes. Likewise, in the optional category, the biggest item is housecleaning, and it comes in at under $300 (big house, twice a month). It falls off very rapidly from there.

        The optional items do occupy more than their fair share of mental real estate, but they truly aren’t very large compared to the big three.

        Like

  5. Had an opportunity to read the book mentioned. Ditto for people like this; I grew up knowing people who were similar — although not with the horrible abuse (at least as far as I knew). People who are “doomsday” “end of the world” types who go off to head for the hills give me the willies.

    Like

    1. “When I come home from work (at the cafe), I expect the kids to be clean, the house to be in good order, and preparations for dinner planned. I shall not participate in more than 5% of household duties outside of home improvement.”

      Some of the requirements are reasonable. One makes me scratch my head–“believes in God”–fine requirement, but I seem to remember RooshV doesn’t believe in a God.

      But the above is so insidious. Clearly RooshV just has no idea what it takes to care for children. That is, if there are lots of children (with 1-2 may be doable). Hopefully he has enough $$ to hire a maid/nanny if there are lots of kids, so that the expectation of clean kids + well made dinner are met, and he never has to change a diaper.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Come to think of it, he is keen on Ukrainian and Russian women, and from what I know of Russia (a bit dated by now), actual married Russian women hardly ever have more than two children.

        Back in the day, you’d meet a lot of divorced/young married Russian mothers of one and slightly older mothers of two, but three was practically unheard of (except among very serious religious groups). Two children in a small apartment with minimal help from a husband is a big plenty, even with some grandma help (which is not uncommon).

        I’ve never come across a divorced Russian mother of two–I don’t know if it’s still like that, but at least back in the day, Russian women tended to push the eject button sooner than that.

        American women are much more likely to have more than two than Russians are, in my experience, and the TFRs reflect that.

        Like

Comments are closed.