The Patriarchy Doesn't Exist

WhereProgressIsMade · 2024-02-07T23:21:17+00:00

Every religion needs a boogeyman.

ConsiderationSea1347 · 2024-02-08T00:27:05+00:00

It never did. The wealthy benefit from getting us to squabble with one another over gender and skin color instead of the real and obvious systemic discrimination.

asianfoodtofulover · 2024-02-07T22:57:19+00:00

It’s the feminist version of the Illuminati

TisIChenoir · 2024-02-08T07:08:59+00:00

Thing is, I understand the patriarchy theory. It so happens that, yes, societies of old created a system of patrilinearity (that the english term?), and not matrilinearity.

It also so happens that positions of power in times of deep insecurity were placed in the hands of the strongest, for survival sake.

Therefore, a system where the succession line of families is that of the father, and where decision makers were mostiy men.

This system is accompanied by strict gender roles. But those gender roles are the source of the system, not the other way around. It's because women are the childrearing ones that their role is defined, and that the society evolved to take into account that fact.

Now, where feminism loses me completely, is when it decides that "patriarchy" means "a society by men, for men, based on the exploitation of women".

That, my friends, is a fucking boogeyman. It's the "enemy" societies have always created to reinforce their social cohesion, and as a way to garner support for the enemy of the state.

I remember a french joke about WWI my grandfather once told me.

"The enemy is stupid. He thinks I'm the enemy, when it's him who is the enemy".

So, from my point of view? The feminism version of patriarchy theory is nothing more than a boogeyman created to garner support from feminists, and to create a rift between men and women. A sweet little lie.

But bear in mind, if you're able to manipulate a valid theory to the point you manufacture such a lie at that scale that if becomes the defacto zeitgeisr? You're not an underdog.

foxsheepgato · 2024-02-08T08:07:48+00:00

currently it's all about shifting blame, play the eternal victim and promoting yourself as some sort of freedom fighter against an all powerful eternal enemy.

darklogic420 · 2024-02-08T15:19:49+00:00

The existence of female-held wealth or power does not invalidate the theory of patriarchy.

The problem with patriarchy as a theory isn't so obvious or easily dismissed as that.

The reality that patriarchy fails to describe isn't one sex that holds a monopoly on power, because that is demonstrably false. It's that powerful people ally with other powerful people, not with powerless people that match them on a few salient features. Naturally, powerful people also make powerful enemies. Therefore, a singular world dominating patriarchy, ubiquitous and all pervasive, is not possible. At best, there is not one but myriad patriarchies, and they vie against each other. Yet these social structures, again, do not benefit the poor and downcast men beneath them, therefore it is an apex fallacy to assign each of these power structures the title of patriarchy.

They are oligarchies. Some are patriarchal. Others less so, to the point that some are matriarchal. None are as egalitarian as advertised.

WrongdoerWilling7657 · 2024-02-08T09:44:39+00:00

I fuck with this sub but sometimes we upvote lazy ass shit here. Like rich women existing could also theoretically happen in a system where they're still disadvantaged. Not saying they're disadvantaged, but the logic here is stupid. It's like the people who say racism is over because we had a black president.

We should do better with the points we make here so people actually take this sub and the movement seriously. Sometimes it's embarrassing to be associated with the low effort shit that gets thrown around here, and it makes me think about just leaving.

Unlikely-Gas-1355 · 2024-02-08T04:55:18+00:00

No, it does. The question is in what cases it is good or bad. The feminist lady likely says "It's always bad" but, I am curious, if she heard a noise in the garage in the middle of the night, would she investigate it herself or send her husband? As a man, I am proud to protect those I love -- whether family, friends, co-workers -- and I engender a certain amount of unspoken influence over them as a result. I don't seek such influence nor do I expect it and I certainly don't demand it but it is there. That's a piece of the patriarchy and I am honored to be a part of it.

I would love to hear an argument from a feminist as to why I should be ashamed of protecting those around me.

Revolutionary-Pea877 · 2024-02-11T14:54:46+00:00

Does anyone note the irony of that fact that only 10 out of 58 (17%) actually made their fortune? A recent article in Forbes claimed that you as a class, about 70% of billionaires were “self-made, i.e. they didn’t inherit their wealth. So… 70% of billionaires did something to get their money, but if you’re a woman, only 17% do? How is it even a patriarchy if women are disproportionately becoming wealthy from someone else’s work, whereas men still have to work to become members of the capitalist elite?

Edited to add source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gigizamora/2023/10/03/the-2023-forbes-400-self-made-score-from-silver-spooners-to-bootstrappers/

Title	The Patriarchy Doesn't Exist
Author	Reasonable-Tea-8160
Upvotes	144
Comments	27
Date	February 7, 2024 9:52 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ales37/the_patriarchy_doesnt_exist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-patriarchy-doesnt-exist.1244833 https://theredarchive.com/post/1244833

Comments