Another Kitty And Bunny Video!

"Smash The (Adulto-) Patriarchy", Or, "The Great Cosmic Custody Battle", Revisited

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the "Vive La Difference!" blog)

(Updated and expanded from its original 2017 and 2024/2025 versions)

NOTE:  I generally don't put youth rights content on this blog, as I typically reserve it for my True Spirit of America Party and Twenty-One Debunked blogs.  But given how this article is about intersectionality, I believe it fits quite well here.  The opinions presented here are my own, and not necessarily those of anyone else in the Matriarchy movement.

One of the most vexing questions of all about the ultimate origin of patriarchy is, how did men take over in the first place, if Women are the superior gender and were already in power to begin with in the last Matriarchal age? And this question is NOT merely academic, as the answer will at least partially inform us on how to prevent men from taking over again in the future.  History may not always repeat itself exactly, of course, but it sure as hell does rhyme nonetheless.

Some theorists would say that was because Women were too lenient with men and allowed them too much freedom ("give them an inch, and they take a mile") while others say the opposite, that Women were too harsh and strict and did not allow men enough freedom, so they rebelled ("forbidden fruit" or "reactance theory").  (Note also the parallels with today's discourse about teenagers and young adults, as this foreshadows the rest of this article.)  Still others, such as Riane Eisler and many others in the Goddess Movement, inspired by Marija Gimbutas, put forth the "Kurgan theory", namely that a few patriarchal cultures formed in central Asia and the Arabian peninsula, and violently conquered their peaceful Matriarchal neighbors and eventually the world.  These cultures, called Kurgans, were semi-literate or illiterate nomadic sheepherders who really had no culture of their own to speak of, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was indeed rewarded in their culture.  But that still does not fully explain how those cultures came to be patriarchal in the first place, except for the fact that aggression is wittingly or unwittingly rewarded in nomadic pastoral societies, and men are generally more aggressive and competitive than Women.

(Rasa Von Werder and William Bond each have their own theories as well.  Rasa believes that Women had sexually selected for more "macho" men by preferentially mating with them, which thus resulted in men becoming too "macho" in a toxic and dangerous way after many generations of such cumulative selection, while Women became less and less "macha" at the same time.  And William believes that Women had essentially allowed men to take over by trusting them too much with power.  I am summarizing and glossing over the details of both here, but that is basically the gist of it.  Both theories I think have at least some merit to them, and both can explain at least part of what happened, to one degree or another.)

I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's fairly recent book "The End of Patriarchy" back in 2017, I inadvertently discovered a similarly-titled book by Claudio Naranjo, titled, "The End of Patriarchy: And the Dawning of a Tri-une Society", which led me to a new theory on the matter.  And while I don't agree with everything that Naranjo says, he does make some good points nonetheless.  He posits that young people were the ones in charge in the Paleolithic age, then Women were in charge in the Neolithic age, and then men took over in the Bronze Age and remained in power since.  And as the title implies, he looks forward to the end of patriarchy and the beginning of a new, "tri-une" society that combines the best of all three past ages, with Women, men, and children all being equally valued members of human society.  While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy way too short, and often mischaracterizes what it really is.  And I also still think that the best way that his "tri-une society" or something like it can be created is with Women in charge, that is, Matriarchy.  Only Women can be truly trusted to be the "Guardians of Liberty" IMHO.

In a nutshell, Naranjo (inspired by fellow Chilean, Totila Albert) delineates three main epochs of human history:  

1) Filiarchy:  This was during the Paleolithic Age more than 12,000 years ago, when people were largely nomadic, and foraging, gathering, and hunting were the norm.  In this early system, neither gender really dominated (though I think it was most likely gynocentric), but children and young people had essentially all of the power, and allegedly tyrannized their elders to one degree or another.  Obviously, this system had its downsides, to put it mildly, so it later evolved into...

2) Matriarchy:  This was during the Neolithic Age (and perhaps even a bit before that too) from 10,000-12,000 years ago with the advent of horticulture and then agriculture, to about 5000-7000 or so years ago, and even into some of the Bronze Age.  Women were in charge then.  Here he makes it seem that individuals were completely subordinate to the collective, which is presented as one of its downsides, along with some possible human sacrifice too.  This part is where I think Naranjo kinda sells Matriarchy too short, and the accuracy of such claims is questionable at best.  But otherwise he describes it fairly well overall, and certainly far, far more peaceful, relatively equal, and eco-friendly than what came next, which was, you guessed it.....

3) Patriarchy:  During the Bronze Age and Iron Age, men had taken over and ruled ever since, spreading their cancerous system around the world.  It's origins began in a few areas during perhaps even the Neolithic, but didn't really take off until well into the Bronze Age.  Here we see lots of war, violence, genocide, ecocide, rape, torture, imperialism, racism, inequality, greed, and stuff like that.  And as they say, the rest is history.  And now in what I like to call the "Leaden Age", that system's days are increasingly numbered as we speak.  Slowly but surely, Women are rising and men are falling, and the proverbial Rubicon has already been crossed by now, Goddess willing.

But one thing is certain:  Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of children and young people) can theoretically exist without patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist without adultism.  To wit, men would never have been able to disempower Women as much as they did if young people had not been thoroughly disempowered first by adults of both primary genders (even if done more so by men).  Kind of like how the rich would never have been able to torpedo the middle class as they did from President Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't first helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus.  That was my latest insight after coming across the work of Naranjo.  After all, it took thousands of years to remove Women from power and subjugate them, and it looks like adultism was one of men's "secret weapons" to accomplish this nefarious and perfidious act.

And of course, adultism continues to perpetuate patriarchy and vice versa to this day.  Both are mutually reinforcing, hence the term "adulto-patriarchy" used by the youth rights movement to emphasize the essential intersection between the two systems of oppression.  Adultism is of course a form of ageism, with the other side of the very same coin being the prejudice and discrimination against senior citizens, often simultaneously by the very same forces.  And at base, adultism is likely rooted subconsciously in an overblown fear of a return to filiarchy, much like patriarchy and misogyny are ultimately rooted in an irrational fear of a return to Matriarchy.  The "cork theory" per William Bond comes to mind:  when you hold a cork underwater, it will stay there, but loosen one's grip enough, and it rises to the top.

As a lifelong (albeit moderate) youth-rights activist myself, I am NOT arguing that children and early adolescents should be blanketly treated as equals to adults in every way, as that would be quite a strawman argument indeed.  So don't go putting words in my mouth now!  But the idea that they should have no civil or human rights at all, and/or should be treated as slaves, serfs, pets, or vermin, is just as odious as if that logic was applied to any other demographic group.  The fact that it has become normalized for people below an arbitrary age limit of (pick your poison, as any age limit is arbitrary) to have fewer rights than prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, and more restrictions than convicted felons, could not have happened without consequences that backfired on adults as well!

With Women in charge, I personally believe that the best way for them to govern both men and children/youth overall is similar to the way that Dutch parents are towards their children.  They have a saying over there, "when you permit, you control."  And another good saying, though not specifically Dutch, is "be a mentor, not a tormentor".  This is largely in line with Riane Eisler's "partnership model" of social interaction.  Others in the Matriarchy movement may or may not agree with me, and that's fine, but that is what I believe nonetheless.

(For what it's worth, I recently discovered that Everything Voluntary Jack, a "voluntaryist" Substacker, had written a great article about what he calls "Parentarchy", which basically ends up being the same thing as what the youth-rights movement calls "adulto-patriarchy", that is, the intersection between adultism and patriarchy.  While Jack and I have disagreed about a number of things, including humanity's Matriarchal past, we have still found some common ground at times.)

Thus, patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist or other civil or human rights movement that is not largely on board with at least the moderate wing of the youth-rights movement as well is indeed a major intersectionality fail.  Much like how "brocialists" and "manarchists" are towards Women, and how "White Feminists" (TM) are towards people of color.  Or how far too many "normies" in practically every movement are towards people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (ableism), and so on.  The entire evil edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail.  Even if patriarchy is in fact the biggest crux of the entire pyramid scheme and protection racket.

In other words, the gender war will simply continue until men surrender to Women.  And the "Great Cosmic Custody Battle" between patriarchy and Matriarchy will simply continue in some form or another until children and young people are also liberated as well, Goddess willing.

So let's smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday!  And the rest of the kyriarchy too.  And may we all one day enjoy liberty and justice for all.

(Mic drop)

RASA'S EXCELLENT RESPONSE FROM 2025:

I'm going to put your two new articles into the compilation entitled 'Can Female Power Save the Planet III". OK yes I have my theory that you described accurately but I also believe in the Kurgan theory - there is NO CONFLICT THERE. I interviewed a woman long ago, an expert on the subject, can't recall her name, a long article where she describes how the tribes I think she said the Steppes - that would be somewhere by Russia or Siberia & these tribes are who started attacking the Matriarchies. Yes, the men got more & more aggressive & violent as women bred with such types - for a while they were helpful. To hafe kids who are bigger, stronger, braver is terrific if they OBEY Mother - go out & work & protect the family, willing to take risks such as defending from mammoths, wolves & bears, etc. But if he turns into a Frankenstein & escapes her authority - which they did - forming their own tribes where men BONDED & produced first knives, then swords, the we have a problem. They were also horsemen, cattle & sheep & goats was their resource moreso than agriculture. So riding on horses they could stride into peaceful villages & with force aided by knives & swords, take over. Yes it's a long story & you told it well. Thanks for this Ajax, you write fantastic articles, very educational, well written & thought out, we just have to read & learn. Thanks! Rasa

PETE'S RESPONSE FROM THEN:

Well said, Rasa! Thank you very much, and you're very welcome 🙂

Best wishes,

Pete

(Most likely smiling down from Heaven right now)

Towards a Healthier Definition of "Casual"

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the "Vive La Difference!" blog)

"Meaningless", "impersonal", "emotionless", "numb", "detached", "disinterested", "faceless", "anonymous", "exploitative", "one-sided", "androcentric", "mechanical", "perfunctory", "distant", "loveless", "banal", "meh", "indifferent", "hollow", "callous", "dishonest", "cruel", "toxic", "degrading", "objectifying", and ultimately, "oxymoronic".  What sort of questionable adjectives seem to come to mind when you hear the word "casual", as in "casual sex", "casual dating", or "casual hookup"?  As if those adjectives (especially the first three or four) are somehow literally implicit in the word itself?

And yet, NONE of these words actually are inherently implicit in the word "casual" at all, rather, they are all shoehorned into the word (and by extension, the deed as well) to varying degrees by society, and especially by patriarchy, ultimately to everyone's detriment (but especially for Women).  In contrast, it is entirely possible for a person of any gender to engage in casual sex, dating, and "hookups" without any of the above adjectives at all (except perhaps when "detached" is used strictly in the spiritual or spiritual-adjacent sense of the word, rather than in the sociopathic or depersonalized sense).  Conversely, it is also (unfortunately) possible for any and all of the above adjectives (except perhaps "anonymous") to also be present to varying degrees in many ostensibly "committed" relationships as well.

Thus, we urgently need to more clearly delineate a much healthier definition of the word "casual" in that regard.  To that end, I believe the very best such definition of "casual" (as well as the closely related term, "no strings attached") is as follows:

"No expectations of commitment or exclusivity, and no obligations beyond mutual pleasure and basic human decency".

That's it.  And nothing else shoehorned into it OR precluded from it, period.  It simply is what it is.  And whatever act in question thus can carry as much or as little meaning or weight as each participant chooses to ascribe to it for themselves.

And crucially, this definition automatically precludes any sort of cruelty or one-sidedness. Or at least, any deliberate or gratuitous cruelty, including "cruel to be kind" whenever it becomes an affront to basic human decency.  "Casual" is thus NOT a license to treat sex as a sort of "moral vacuum" and wantonly disregard general ethics, human decency, dignity, rights, agency, or personal boundaries of anyone.  And furthermore, if the pleasure is not mutual, what's the point of it really?  While it is indeed a bit too utopian to say that "no one gets hurt", as simply due to human nature, no one can ever really guarantee that for anyone, it is nonetheless protopian to note that this definition goes a long way towards greatly reducing that adverse potential.

(It may also be good to think of "casual" as more of a spectrum than a strict binary.)

And whether it is casual or otherwise, remember that it's always best to think of any such relations in terms of "I and Thou" NOT "I and It", as Martin Buber would say.

And while I am utterly ineffective when it comes to channeling the deceased, I would nonetheless hazard an educated guess that the late, great Guru Rasa Von Werder would thus be smiling down from Heaven in agreement with my definition 😊

Let the planetary healing begin! 

P.S.  I think our friendly bonobo cousins would agree as well 😊 

(Image from Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Kitty and Bunny Video!

Real-Life Examples Of "Rape-Free Societies"

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog)

In a similar vein as several of my recent articles, I decided to ask Dr. Google, in its infinite wisdom, for some examples of (practically) "rape-free societies", as the late anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday had observed.  These are merely mythical utopia's or fantasies, but documented, real-life examples. And here is what I found:

Anthropological studies—most notably by researcher Peggy Reeves Sanday—classify societies as "rape-free" when sexual assault is either completely absent or statistically rare, heavily punished, and viewed as a severe loss of status rather than a sign of masculinity. [1, 2]

Documented Examples of Rape-Free/Low-Rape Societies

The Mosuo: A matrilineal society in southwestern China where family lineage and property pass through women, and male sexual dominance or entitlement is absent. [1]
The Minangkabau: The largest matrilineal society in the world (located in West Sumatra, Indonesia), characterized by high gender equality and shared decision-making. [1]
The Iroquois (Haudenosaunee): Historically exhibited high political and social power for women, who controlled agriculture, land, and a significant voice in clan governance. [1]
The Ashanti (Asante): A matrilineal culture in Ghana where women traditionally held prominent roles in commerce, politics, and social continuity. [1]
The Vanatinai: An egalitarian society in Papua New Guinea where men and women share economic and social authority with minimal gender-based violence. [1]
Additional Cultural Examples: Anthropological data also identifies low or absent rates of rape among the Bougainville, Apache, Guajiro, and Trobrianders. [1]

Key Characteristics of Rape-Free Societies

Gender Equality & Complementarity: Both sexes hold respected, integrated positions in public life, governance, and daily affairs. [1, 2]
Matrilineal Structures: Lineage traced through mothers diminishes male heterosexual authority, sexual entitlement, and structural dominance. [1]
Rejection of "Toughness" Culture: Rather than celebrating aggressive male competition or dominance, social norms value interpersonal connection, mutual respect, and shared consent. [1, 2]
Strong Social Censure: Sexual violence is treated as shameful, dishonorable, and subject to swift communal disapproval or punishment rather than being ignored or normalized. [1, 2]

Thus, such a thing is indeed possible (with the caveat that at least some degree/flavor of Matriarchy seems to be a prerequisite).  In other words, it looks like nurture > nature after all.  Rape is always and everywhere a cultural problem, at its very roots, and thus the "myth of inevitability" has now been completely laid waste.

And while affirmative consent laws (aka "Only Yes Means Yes" laws), consent education, bystander intervention, media campaigns, resistance training, and things like that are necessary to effect cultural change, these surface-level measures are sadly not sufficient by themselves to truly strike the very deep cultural roots of this problem overnight.

So what are we waiting for?  Let the planetary healing begin!  And Goddess willing, let us thus finally make rape as bizarre and unthinkable as cannibalism!

(Mic drop)

WILLIAM RESPONDS:

Obviously having a matriarchal society is going to prevent rape but another factor to consider is men's access to sex. It seem crazy to me that in societies ruled by men, barriers are put up to make it difficult for men and women to come together for sex. So women who are promiscuous are slut-shamed and prostitution is made illegal while sex is condemned as sinful and dirty. I think without these barriers rape would be far less commonplace. 

PETE RESPONDS:

I know, right?  So very true indeed.  Yet another way that patriarchy backfires hard on men.  It effectively sets a ridiculously artificially high "price floor" for sex, while using that as leverage to grind the vast majority of men into dust just to make the rich even richer.

And what do the oligarchs do with all of that power?  They build phallus-extending Towers of Babel that endanger the very Mother Earth that gives us all life.  Natch.

When enough men FINALLY realize this, how much they have been RIPPED OFF by the patriarchy in so many ways, and see just how much common ground they have with the vast majority of Women, a critical mass will form to put an end this evil system once and for all, Goddess willing.

Thank you for sharing your insights, William 😊

FINAL THOUGHT:

When spearheading a sexual revolution of any kind, we must always remember to fight TWICE as hard for the right to say NO as we do for the right to say YES. Lesson learned the hard way, over half a century too late. Sincerely, The Anglosphere.

An Open Letter to Women in Politics

(Updated for 2026 America)

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the True Spirit of America Party blog and Vive La Difference! blog)

To any Women who are running for office, in office, or considering running for office in the near future:

You have probably noticed that the world is on fire, and has been for quite some time now.  We stand on the verge of World War III as we speak, and our overburdened planet is in grave danger.  We continue to flirt with the prospect of mass extinction (including humans, by the way) in the not-too-distant future, as we continue to cook the planet with reckless abandon.  We know what is causing all of these problems, and we already have the technology and wherewithal to solve them if we really wanted to, yet our current Big Wetiko "leaders" refuse to solve such problems because they are sycophantic lackeys to the parasitic elites, if not the very same elites themselves.  And these plutocrats are hopelessly addicted to "business as usual".

So how did we get here in the first place, exactly?  The answer lies in ancient history, about 7000 years ago or so, when men apparently got the bright idea to take over the (known) world piece by piece, by deposing you from power.  That's right, it was originally Women who were in charge for most of humanity's existence, and us fellas apparently thought we could do a better job as leaders than you ladies did.  Well, history shows us that we were wrong--dead wrong in fact.  Indeed, the best advice that us men can give to Women is "don't be like us", because we f**ked the world up royally. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it "peace".  We have devoured and suffocated our own empire, and now we are all paying a heavy price for it.  That's right--WE did it.  And we're sorry about that--though we can clearly stuff our "sorrys" in a sack! 

Oh, and to top it off, us fellas decided to hit America's self-destruct button and vote overwhelmingly for Donald Trump for President in 2016, and again in 2024.  Yes, really.  Because apparently we couldn't screw things up enough already.  Fortunately, thank Goddess, the damage was limited in his first term, but his second term has been far, far worse thus far.

And now it is time for you to reclaim your rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, starting with the USA and eventually spreading from there.  In fact, it is LONG overdue for you to do so.  We cannot apologize enough for handing you such a monumental clusterf**k of a world for you to fix, of course, but we fellas have plenty of faith that you will be able to do so. We know that Women, not men, are the real natural-born leaders, and you can clearly handle power a lot better without it going to your heads than us.  We know that your preferred paradigm of society, what Riane Eisler calls the "partnership" model, is far better than the "dominator" model that we have been practicing for the past 7000 years.  As the saying goes, never send a boy to do a man's job--send a Woman instead.  Truer words were never spoken, and we need you now more than ever before.

The highest and tallest "glass ceiling" in the world--President of the United States--is still waiting to be smashed in 2028, as are plenty of other important political offices in 2026 as well.  Even though Hillary already did that with the popular vote in 2016, the Rube Goldberg machine known as the Electoral College was systematically rigged against her.  And Kamala Harris clearly got cheated as well in 2024.  But ultimately, a Woman will eventually win.  We wish all of you the very best of luck.  Now, go forth and make old Buckminster Fuller proud!  

Vive La Femme! Vive La Difference!

Sincerely,

Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

Poem: She Was Asking For It (Never Again)

Poem:  "She Was Asking For It (Never Again)"

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(FIVE-ALARM TRIGGER WARNING:  rape, SA, and other violence against women, current and historical atrocities, misogyny, racism, antisemitism, genocide, gynocide)

NOTE:  This poem was written and first posted in February 2024 on the Vive La Difference! blog, not about anyone in particular, but is being re-posted in light of current events.

A young woman was raped the other day

Like so many others every day

She was apparently "no angel"

She was a "wild party girl" who "broke all the rules"

What is your first thought, my friends

When you hear this horrible news?

I would hazard a guess you would give a stock answer:

"You know she was asking for it, right?"

I bet you would say the same 

About the Rape of the Sabine Women

Upon which Rome's (vain)glory was founded

They were asking for it too, right?

Would you say the same about the millions of women

Who were murdered, tortured, and raped 

During the Inquisition and the Burning Times?

They were asking for it too, right?

How about the First Nations women

Who were murdered, tortured, and raped

In the name of Manifest Destiny 

They were asking for it too, right?

How about the transatlantic slave trade?

You know the women didn't knock themselves up 

Forced to breed more "black ivory" for Master

They were asking for it too, right?

How about the women victims of the Spanish Civil War

Two terrors, Red and White 

Two sides of the same evil coin

They were asking for it too, right?

How about the very literal Rape of Nanjing

Mass murder, mass rape, and mass torture 

In the name of the Empire of the Rising Sun

They were asking for it too, right?

How about the Jews and countless others

During the Holocaust and otherwise 

Half of six million is three million women

They were asking for it too, right?

How about the devil with whom the Allies made a deal

A devil named Joseph Stalin

Whose army raped countless civilian women 

They were asking for it too, right?

Revenge for genocide tastes sweet at first

Then leaves a very bitter aftertaste 

Pay it forward, its name is Nakba, 1948

They were asking for it too, right?

Rape is the gift that keeps on giving

Cycle of violence, see October 7, 2023

A new day that will live in infamy

#MeToo unless you're a Jew, right?

A taste of the enemy's own medicine 

Becomes an overdose in the ruins of Gaza

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

If everyone is asking for it, then who isn't?

Male desecration of the Sacred Feminine 

Sure as hell knows no bounds

The banality of evil writ very, very large

All masked by, "they were asking for it"

The Keystone Lie is thus laid waste

And with it, the whole stack of lies

Has now collapsed faster than you can say,

You guessed it:  "They were asking for it"

So let me ask you one more time again

About the young woman who was raped

Who was supposedly "no angel"

What is your answer now?

Because if your answer to her now

Is anything other than "NEVER AGAIN!"

With NO asterisks or qualifications

Then you, too, must be "asking for it".

(Mic drop)

ALTERNATE ABRIDGED VERSION:

Replace stanzas 11, 12, and 13 with the following two generic stanzas if one feels it is still too soon to include any references to current/recent events in the Middle East:

Revenge for genocide tastes sweet at first

Then leaves a very bitter aftertaste 

Rape is the gift that keeps on giving

They were asking for it too, right?

A taste of the enemy's own medicine 

Becomes an overdose in the ruins of war

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

If everyone is asking for it, then who isn't?