RE: Patriarchy.

Demonspawn · 2013-05-06T20:28:13+00:00

What is patriarchy? Fathers as head of household.

What is Patriarchy? That men oppress women via society.

One existed, but no longer. One is a figment of feminist imagination.

lordslag · 2013-05-06T20:11:44+00:00

We don't define patriarchy, feminists do. That definition seems to be that men, consciously or not, all band together to prevent women from obtaining freedom, power, or liberties. It does not exist, if it did, then most of the homeless wouldn't be men, most of the dirtiest, highest danger work wouldn't be done by men, dating would be egalitarian, sentencing for female criminals would be equal to that of male criminals, rape and DV allegations wouldn't invalidate men's presumption of innocence. The list goes on for a VERY long time and is so overwhelming as to be preposterous by this point. It's relevance to me is that I suffer social opprobrium just for being male, and my accomplishments are robbed from me because women think I've just been handed them for having a penis.

IF you're not a troll, I hope this helps.

2013-05-07T05:33:38+00:00

Patriarchy is like a knight going out on the king's order to fight a dragon.

He talks to the local farmer who says it lives in the east, then he talks to the butcher who says it lives in the west. He talks to the knight's guard who says it has a bad temperament and actively attacks the local villages - he talks to the local priest who says it's just a misunderstood creature and it just needs to be talked to and made to understand its actions.

He talks to a philosopher who says the dragon is metaphorical and it only exists in our minds, and in some ways we are all the dragon, the knight talks to his assistant, who somewhat agrees - but adds her recommendation that we undergo weekly exorcisms, and that anyone who hasn't had an exorcism is a "dragon-sympathiser". He finally talks to a cheerful baker who says that the dragon was alive, but is now dead - and all we need to do is acknowledge that it did exist, and be mindful that we don't fall victim to another dragon.

A scientist disagrees with this - she's seen the landscapes in the wilderness and it seems there are often forest fires. She maps out the area, and describes the scorch marks for the knight. "After all", she says, "where there's smoke, there are necessarily dragons, right?"

He talks to the local zealot who declares that it was the fault of a certain religious sect who summoned the dragon from the nether-realm and tried to use it to its own purposes when it backfired on them, and then to an alchemist who heard the zealot's thoughts, but adds with a hint of a smirk that he is helping the religious sect with fighting the dragon, and that the knight needn't worry - but as he turns away, the knight hears the alchemist murmur to himself about how pathetic the sect is.

The knight then talks to the local conspiracy theorist - who thinks that the king profits from the dragon hysteria because when he sends knights to slay the dragon, they often buy a lot of equipment in the city, indirectly contributing the the king's wealth. The king doesn't seem like a bad guy, but it's indisputable that there's money to be made this way.

What is the knight to do?

He doesn't know where the dragon is, or even if it exists in the form he expects. He doesn't know what equipment he needs, if any at all.

How the hell can the knight offer any judgement on the problem or the solution when there's no consensus on the nature of the problem?

The best facts he got were from the scientist and he agrees that it could be evidence of dragons - but he doesn't agree that it's necessarily a dragon causing these forest fires. It could be arsonists, or natural processes. The scientist never even really gave him a good idea of what she thought the dragon was... just that forest fires could be caused by what she may think a dragon is.

This is how I view patriarchy (and I'm sure you'll note that many of the villager's ideas parallel things various feminists say about the patriarchy). If feminists were to nut out a clear definition - and present that to me, I may or may not agree with its existence, or how we should approach solving it.

While it's some vague, wishy-washy concept? It's useless in discussion and trying to solve it is a red herring.

You can't solve a problem by saying it's caused by something you can't define/quantify. You need to prove the causal relationship, if the cause is what you want to attack. Fighting "The Patriarchy" is a non-solution.

CrossHook · 2013-05-06T20:35:46+00:00

We don't live in a patriarchy and we have no interest in discussing feminist ideological trash.

Disorderly-Conduct · 2013-05-06T21:22:20+00:00

Here's an article about the topic from girlwriteswhat:

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2011/07/patriarchy-shmatriarchy.html

jolly_mcfats · 2013-05-06T21:13:46+00:00

Honestly, I think the most practical definition of it is "a gendered phrase which many use to describe a force which disadvantages women, without any consensus on what the characteristics of that force are, or how the force operates". The lack of consensus on what is meant is not important, because the purpose the phrase, practically, is to provide an image to resent, and a phrase that can be used to justify privileging women over men.

There seems provisional evidence of a cognitive bias in our society that attributes a greater expectation of agency on men than on women, and that this bias is pervasive in men AND women. Feminism doesn't appear to be an antidote, considering how frequently someone identifying as a feminist will reinforce this perception. Nonetheless, there are a minority of feminists that use the term patriarchy to describe this bias, and when they do, they are describing something measurable and real- it's just that the linguistic framework in which this idea is couched is hostile.

There's a longer post that I am doing research on right now, related to the importance of terminology: but here's my rough opinion now:

There is an aspect of traditional gender roles that persists, and is somewhat central to most MRM philosophy that is the force that a very few feminists also recognize and call "patriarchy". The contention between the MRM and these feminists isn't so much over the existence of the bias, but the language used to describe it, and all the ancillary other notions that are frequently associated with the term. Concepts like toxic and hegemonic masculinity.

Feminism has a long history of considering language carefully, recognizing the implications of linguistic frameworks, and working hard to reshape the way we speak in an attempt to reshape the way we think. One only need look at the concerted push for gender-neutral phrases to see this. The framework of a "patriarchy" that must be cured by "feminism" seems a curious omission by a movement so concerned with fair language.

2013-05-06T21:46:33+00:00

If we define Patriarchy as enforced (or strongly encouraged) adherence to traditional gender roles, then yes, it absolutely does exist.

I'm willing to wager that many of men's personal problems come from overreaching for the masculine ideal, and that many of men's societal problems come from cultural reinforcement and societal perception of the masculine ideal (or the perversion thereof).

However, I don't think that the solution is to demonize masculinity or men who naturally portray traditionally masculine traits, as some feminists do.

mean0dean0 · 2013-05-07T01:36:57+00:00

GWW's video on benevolent sexism seems relevant here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VupEC0cAWo

rightsbot · 2013-05-06T20:04:24+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

2013-05-06T20:11:24+00:00

How do you define patriarchy

That's easy. It's Fleetches and Flootches.

TheFarnell · 2013-05-07T02:29:29+00:00

Patriarchy, by its core definition, is the idea that families are centered on fathers and family possessions are passed through male lines.

I.E. in a patriarchy, women will usually be considered members of their husband's family first, as will any children. Historical example: most of medieval Europe.

This is in opposition to matriarchy, in which families are centered on mothers and family possessions are passed through female lines.

I.E. in a matriarchy, husbands will be considered members of their wive's families first, as will any children. Historical example: the Iroquois (to a certain extent, up until today).

loose-dendrite · 2013-05-07T03:50:40+00:00

Picking a single definition is meaningless. Intent behind words is what matters unless your aim is manipulation. Which, I suspect, is why casual feminists believe weak definitions of patriarchy while hardcore feminists believe strong definitions. You get snagged with the weak and led into the strong.

The strong definition of patriarchy is the one every feminist uses to support sexist beliefs, though they hide behind weaker definitions that are easily proven and far more pleasant on the mind untainted by feminist doctrine.

The strong definition of patriarchy is that men as as a class - in the same essential way that capitalists are a class - oppress women as a class. The same is true of other pairings like race, religion, and sexual orientation; thus kyriarchy/intersectionality.

The evidence known by every feminist I've ever talked to does not support belief in patriarchy. The rational mind cannot go from most people in charge being men to men operating as a class to oppress women as a class. The supporting evidence is pretty strong, however, so the uninquisitive but rational are often tricked. The supporting evidence is overwhelmingly manufactured and in fact false, as well, but discerning this requires one to actually want to be right more than merely feel right. In addition, women with persecution complexes gain from belief in patriarchy.

The weak definitions of patriarchy draws young women and men into feminism because they are trivially true. Even though they do not support the conclusions feminists draw, feminist thought is well-developed enough and involves enough perspective shifts that well-read feminists sound wise even though they are fools. So a young egalitarian-minded individual becomes a casual feminist and uses the trivial evidence of gender roles and male-female social differences to draw false conclusions. Reinforced by non-trivial but false evidence provided by feminist academia such as, and by no means exhaustive: domestic violence is something men do to women, 99% of rapists are men, and women underearn men due to discrimination.

The weak definitions of patriarchy include the mere existence of gender roles, gender roles putting men in more positions of power, women seen as weak and men as strong*, most important historical figures and such being men, men outearning women (ignoring actual wealth and control), etc. In short, men and women being different and men possessing more overt power or prestige.

All views of patriarchy have one crucial flaw that makes patriarchy not oppressive. Actual oppressed peoples gain very little from their oppression. Women's "oppression" under "patriarchy" gives them longer, less stressful lives with better education and greater protection against poverty, bad luck, ill health, and violence. Women also gain, under "patriarchy", incredible legal power over men due to being heavily favored in court** simply for being female and also able to use false accusations of domestic violence or rape while men cannot do the same to women with any effect.

* Many here note that this is actually false even though most believe our culture supports this statement. Men are not seen as strong. Males are either strong or not men.

** Family and criminal, anyway. I don't know about civil court in general but I'd be surprised if women weren't favored there too.

Maleguy_Boyman · 2013-05-06T22:06:55+00:00

Patriarchy is a social system in which men are expected to dominate the central roles of leadership and authority.

Its important to know that this describes a cultural institution, which can be upheld by men or women whether it benefits them or not.

Typically it only benefits the already powerful.

It exists both big and small though in terms of oppression.

Its relevance to the MRM includes how patriarchy is very oppressive to men as it defines the contradiction that is how women can be like men, but men can not be like women. This is because (under patriarchy) we Value what we consider to be 'male' traits while 'female' traits are less valued.

Title	RE: Patriarchy.
Author	dropcode
Upvotes	10
Comments	20
Date	May 6, 2013 8:03 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1dt9fg/re-patriarchy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/re-patriarchy.1612129 https://theredarchive.com/post/1612129

Comments