Man-Hating (& Racist) Shaming Tactic: The Patriarchy

Welcome to “Shamus Tacticus: A Field Guide.” My name is Typhon Blue and today I will be presenting a somewhat rarified and fascinating specimen of the species Shamus Tacticus—colloquially known as “the Shaming Tactic.”

Without further ado, I present today’s shaming tactic:

The Patriarchy

This shaming tactic can be employed in the following way: “I can ignore your emotions and opinions because… patriarchy!”

Interestingly this shamus tacticus can also be utilized to silence those women who have lost the competition for “which woman expresses the least empathy towards men.” Empathy towards men being the primary symptom of the patriarchal thought patterns that parasitize a women’s brains and remove their independent will, supposedly.

This particular Shamus Tacticus arises out of cross-pollination between several subspecies and species.

  1. Blatantus Liacus — quite simply, Blatantus Liacus is the perpetuation of complete and utter bullshit.
  2. Femicus Paracitis Alluricus – A subspecies of Femicus Alluricus, an inflated belief in the attractiveness of feminine submission or parasitism.
  3. Femicus Centrus Completeus – a man is incomplete if he does not somehow center his life around women.

Blatant Liacus enters the fray by describing women in “patriarchy” as property of men rather then their legal wards. To understand the difference consider the relationship between your dog and your child. Your dog is your property; your child is your ward. Women were the wards of men historically; they were not men’s property.

Femicus Paracitus Alluricus adds supposed plausibility to “the patrairchy” as a shaming tactic. It asserts that men have an immense desire for women’s submission.

For most parents who have a severely mentally disabled child, the prospect of being the guardian of someone who will never achieve adult independence is exhausting, suffocating and terrifying. But for some reason men will take enormous pains to arrange society just so they can take complete responsibility for an adult sized female leech for the rest of their lives.

Femicus Centrus Completus, the idea that men wish to revolve around women not unlike the moon revolves around the earth, is foundational to Femicus Paracitus Alluricus because in order to dominate a woman a man must center his entire life around her; and one must assume that a man will sacrifice his own independence to do so, and will sacrifice his independence in order to center women with eager glee rather then the frantic horror of a fox whose paw is caught in a bear trap.

Now that we’ve examined the taxonomy of this particular Shamus Tacticus, let’s look at its anatomy directly and observe its uniquely nuanced self-contradiction.

How is Patriarchy Theory a shaming tactic, one might ask?

For that let’s direct our attention to the international study of patriarchy, the CEDAW map. CEDAW refers to the Convention on Eliminating Discrimination Against Women or, less euphemistically and more accurately titled, how “n*****s are eviler then us white folks.”



What you will notice as you analyze the CEDAW map, is that the most patriarchal and thus least moral cultures are both poor and dark skinned.

Now one might be tempted to say that societies grant women as much freedom as those societies can afford. In poor societies the technologies, including birth control, that liberate women do not exist or cannot be afforded; further poor societies are often violent societies and the political and social limitations on women serve to both protect them and compel men to take the risks that get men killed at far greater rates.

And you might say our own social history reflects this progression. As technologies that created safer and more comfortable societies and lessened the necessary labor in the home were developed and enjoyed widescale adoption women were granted more social and political freedom.


The real answer is that us wealthy white folks, and by white folks, I mean wealthy white women are just better people then those patriarchal, girl raping n****r bastards.

So why is Patriarchy Theory a shaming tactic?

Well let’s step through it.

Let’s imagine for a moment that “patriarchy” put men in charge. But men wished to take care of women as best they could and when it was technologically feasible for women to be free of the limitations of the home, men endeavored to provide them that freedom.

If we imagine patriarchy as paternalistic but ultimately good-natured we approach ending the dynamic by pointing out that men having to take responsibility for women is exhausting, unfair and limiting to them as well as infantilizing to women and we try to correct the situation like intelligent adults.

But this, this is too reasonable. And this reasonable conception of “patriarchy” just doesn’t create the necessary moral opprobrium against men as a group. It doesn’t get the dander up; it doesn’t whip people into a self-righteous fury; and we all know the hate must flow!

Therefore Patriarchy Theory necessitates the belief that not only were women the wards of men in history (not property, wards) but that men actively set it up that way in order to rape, beat and murder women with impunity and secure all the social goodies for themselves.

Patriarchy theory says men are evil fuckers. Not misguided, not part of a society that either didn’t have or couldn’t afford the technologies that free women and make public life safe and comfortable, not part of a system that just doesn’t work any more and forced into a role that they didn’t necessarily want.



I hope you enjoyed this installment of “Deconstructing Shaming Tactics.” Thank you for listening, direct all inquiries to “” and please tune in next time, when we will present another weapon in the endless arsenal of Shamus Tacticus.

Note: I am honored to present this transcript of my friend Typhon Blue’s work.–Dean Esmay.

Support independent journalism

  • Watched it twice, here and on Youtube site. If she was making a point, it went over past me, although it was extremely hard to follow what she was saying.

    It would be much better if she droped the fancy gobbly goop talk and used plain English. Or maybe I am not smart enough to follow.

    From the site here ( reading is much easier than listen to her ) I gather it is more about hatred of men. I’m sorry Dean, but it just seems exaggerated to me.

  • The context of the earlier two parts of the series might help, but I’m surprised you’ve never run into anyone who runs around bleating that we live in a “Patriarchy” and that “The Patriarchy” is a system that for thousands of years has oppressed women worldwide, and supposedly continues to do so in much of the world.

    Being a woman, perhaps you’re somewhat less likely to have someone claim you’re a Patriarchal bastard in an attempt to shame you into shutting up by pushing on you the (hatefully false) belief that men as a class supposedly oppress women. It’s a tactic frequently used to tell men to shut up and “check their privilege” when they dare argue from their own point of view. It’s an especially common tactic among many privileged white women who call themselves “feminists” (or their smug white knight enablers, like John Scalzi) and I’ve had it done to me more than once.

    The “gobbly goop” talk is humorous in nature, and humor I suppose is subjective. I found it hilarious.

  • For a look at some other ludicrously common shaming tactics to tell men to shut the fuck up, this catalog of shaming tactics might be helpful. I’ve had all of them thrown at me at some point or another.