Does The "Patriarchy" Truly Exist?

Karglenoofus · 2023-10-17T01:46:43+00:00

Yes and no.

Are the 1% mostly men? Yes.

Does your average man have every advantage in every aspect of the world? Absolutely not.

I'm just so tired of hearing the word used against half of the population it's lost all meaning and weight.

CostlyDugout · 2023-10-17T04:57:15+00:00

The “patriarchy” is just a catch all term to vilify men without having to be more specific.

Men do not have all the power. A very, very small group of men have all the power. But even that’s changed in the past decade. Kamala and AOC, for example, are two of the most powerful people on Earth.

Third or fourth wave feminism has convinced American women that they don’t have even one advantage over men. Totally untrue.

Meanwhile, if women want to work construction or go to war, be my guest. I’ll gladly stay home. But that’ll never happen. There’s a reason men have those jobs. Because men are disposable, and women are not.

Waratah888 · 2023-10-17T03:19:50+00:00

It's a conspiracy theory.

In the west atleast, look at hourly rate of pay, enshrined right to vote, participation rates in university. All equal.

The minor issues to do with remaining, lingering, pockets of sexism are more than compensated by affirmative action and quotes.

Harsimaja · 2023-10-17T03:18:44+00:00

Patriarchy means an encoded rule by (esp. ‘paternalistic’) men. Our society does not have this.

To feminists, Patriarchy is a name characterising society as one-sided in favour of men over women, and that oppressed women but not men. A simplistic, dogmatic picture with men at the top, with an oppression arrow down onto women. Their main focus for this is that more men reach senior positions in politics and business, regardless of the fact this is very, very far from a rule and without ever being truly open to considering other, intrinsic, psychological reasons why this remains true today, from lifestyle preferences to drive to (potentially oppressive) incentives and burdens upon men pressuring them far more to this.

This is bullshit and dishonest, and we can and do debunk this massively in many ways - but, ironically if they’re the oppressors, would risk far more doing so in public than they would saying the opposite…

However, if we take all of those aspects of society that are skewed against women, we can call that the patriarchy and male privilege, sure. Though to avoid making it this nebulous and dogmatic order of all society, better to talk about specific ‘male privileges’.

But then there must also be a matriarchy, and female privilege. There’s an awful lot of that too… And that’s where our definitions might differ.

galacticdude7 · 2023-10-17T12:54:26+00:00

The Patriarchy is very much a made up thing that has become a socially acceptable conspiracy theory to blame all the world's problems on, people talk about the The Patriarchy in the same way that conspiracy theorists talk about the Illuminati, The Deep State, or the International Jewish Conspiracy.

If our society is supposedly a society run by men for the exclusive benefit of men to the detriment of women, then we are doing a really fucking awful job of that.

no_user_ID_found · 2023-10-17T05:44:31+00:00

It’s the funniest when they tell men at the bottom of society they’re privileged. They really believe in an imaginary penis-bonus at work and when you’re straight and white they really seem to think you’re getting CEO positions offerend on a daily basis. Are most CEO’s straight white men? Yes. Are most straight white men CEO? No.

White_Buffalos · 2023-10-17T19:33:43+00:00

No, the "patriarchy" is a feminist construct to avoid their own accountability.

If such a thing does exist, it's in the power structures of theocracies in the Middle East, and is a consequence of religious belief.

But women are more likely to be believers and are more religious than men are. And that can extend to non-theological systems, such as and including feminist dogma. To the extent they harp on it as a tool to avoid their own issues, it exists as a way to justify their radfem, hateful jealousies against males.

As a concrete, deliberate, or even unconscious aspect of male culture in the West, however, no, it doesn't exist.

The "matriarchy" DOES, however. Radfems consciously and deliberately coordinate their anti-male worldview with an eye to dominate men. Just poke around their enclaves on Reddit. And fuck that noise.

Phantombiceps · 2023-10-17T12:50:59+00:00

The Patriarchy is a real change of social organization in human history, that has been distorted into a conspiracy type theory by feminists and sociologists. They do this by very falsely analogizing it to social classes or international relations. Patriarchy - formal leadership positions going to males- is or was real but the theory of patriarchy is false.

Fofotron_Antoris · 2023-10-17T13:54:54+00:00

No, never existed, its pure Apex Fallacy. Sure today and historically the cream on top of society are mostly, not only, men, but on average men have it much worse off than women in all parts of society. Yes, even historically that is the case.

If we compare the lowest men with the lowest woman, the man will have it infinitely worse than the woman, and unlike her there will be no one who sympathizes or wants to help him.

When someone speaks about "historical patriarchy," just remember that for every 1 men who passed on his genes 17 women reproduced.

MSHUser · 2023-10-17T12:59:59+00:00

I 100% share your sentiment on the 'patriarchy'. From what I know, feminist claim to our society being a patriarchy has always been rooted in historical events. Maybe today might not be a patriarchy, but they'll always use the past to say we still have remnants of the patriarchy that we have to supposedly undo. But once you look at history, I find it questionable if the patriarchy existed in western history at all, but feminist will keep on insisting this dogma and not let us think for ourselves, so we have to push past this and see the truth for ourselves.

Millstone50 · 2023-10-17T12:51:16+00:00

2023-10-17T19:45:46+00:00

No it doesn't. For millennia, men have competed against other men for the benefit of their families, not to oppress women. 'The Patriarchy' is a conspiracy theory which demonises men and which women have used to unfairly gain resources and jobs at the expense of men.

wardenferry419 · 2023-10-17T08:29:55+00:00

it's not about men. it's about the have and have-nots. very few have the most and the vast majority have little. women are quick to blame men because we are not allowed to fight back.

hehimCA · 2023-10-17T03:36:19+00:00

Not in the western world. Maybe Afghanistan and other Middle East countries.

Langland88 · 2023-10-17T09:08:33+00:00

I feel like historically, yes maybe. But in this modern world, we have a lot more women in positions of power than ever before in our history of the human race. Here in the United States, the second in command, the Vice President is a woman and on top of that, a woman of color.

Over in the UK, they have had a female Prime Minister and they had a Queen for as long as I can remember or up until last year. And don't kid yourself that Queen had a lot of power through influence.

There have been numerous Women who have been Prime Minister or the President in many developed nations. We also have some women that are CEOs of big companies even if they are minority, they still hold that position nonetheless. Also we have more women in the workforce than ever before as well.

So as far as I'm concerned, there is no Patriarchy.

InsideSufficient5633 · 2024-09-29T14:20:44+00:00

I agree with you.

I want to add that using the hypothetical systemical issue of patriarchy as a way to explain why men are on the top % of society "controlling it", is not because there is a system that favors men for being men, but rather than men have more testosterone biologically. A lot more. This makes men more capable of handing tasks everyday, and grind their way up. Not that women can't, but the probability of men that actually do so successfully is much higher, while we women might need to take something (usually medication) for menstrual pain if we have a difficult day.

It's a biological reality. That doesn't mean men are better than women. Women have other characteristics we should honor without the comparing them or try to tailor them to what men can do. Women can achieve levels of success throughout multiple areas of life and have overall life satisfaction, rather than being the top at a certain area.

From here, it's inevitable that we segway into how our current cultural and societal landscape values financial and material (assets) abundance over other types of abundace, thinking that "someone with more money is inherently more happy therefore having more money is better therefore if men can achieve money a bit more easily than women due to a biological factor that facilitates them working more then they are privileged thus we should try to make women match or surpass them financially or in material success because money is happiness and money is the only success anyone should strive for to be better".

But that would be too much to bear for the "patriarchy is the root of women's disadvantage" defendors.

Icy-Complex-4279 · 2024-10-20T16:13:31+00:00

It does. But there's nothing wrong with it per se. Just the natural laws of the universe between masculine and feminine energy. Everything in the universe has a balance

JotaD21 · 2024-11-20T11:32:06+00:00

I'm late af but I'm relieved I wasn't the only one thinking about how contradictory it's the patriarchy argument where men are also oppressed by the system that's supposed to privilege us

DukeRukasu · 2023-10-17T13:56:34+00:00

I mean, the world once was pretty patriarchic and some places still are. But nowadays, in most western countries, it is an imaginary enemy, that the third wave Feminists need to justify their activism...

dawszein14 · 2023-10-17T21:28:14+00:00

yes, probably. I don't think worrying about big picture abstractions is the key to improving women's and men's lot in life

2023-10-18T10:48:06+00:00

If you look at it through an overarching historical lens, the patriarchy has undoubtedly existed throughout most of history. In recent times, and I’m talking the past decade or two, and only really in developed countries has the patriarchy meaningfully been challenged with genuine female advancement.

Here in the USA we got the right to vote a century ago and the right to open our own bank account 50 years ago.

I get the sense that when people make the argument that the patriarchy doesn’t exist, they’re talking about “right now in my advanced economy / democratic country” but they aren’t looking at the bigger picture.

More-Bluebird5805 · 2023-10-18T17:39:35+00:00

I think it’s weird that is a noun and not a verb/adjective. I think “patriarchal attitudes” harm both men and women in the sense that it is stereotyping people based solely on sex/gender. That hurts everyone. I know plenty of women, including feminists who are intensely patriarchal in their attitudes i.e., expect financial support form men, expect men to be tough, cruel, heartless etc. I consider all forms of misandry that partake of traditional male stereotypes as a form of patriarchy. I don’t believe that there is a secret cabal of men intent on oppressing women, but I think some men get self esteem from putting women down and making them feel less than and women encounter these men frequently. They are a small minority but they are extremely active and aggressive. I guess what I’m saying is, if your looking for the patriarchy you don’t have to look any further than your own heart. It feeds on bitterness, rejection, and feelings of scarcity and it has a gendered aspect. I would say it is wide spread and diffuse in women, but more concentrated in men, with a small minority policing women frequently. I think the best remedy is to treat everyone with kindness and respect and try to be the type of person you would look up to. What you seek in others is your gift to give, give it freely.

Dapper_Platform_1222 · 2023-10-17T19:53:35+00:00

What you have is an aristocracy or an oligarchy. Are they often white men? Yes. Is that the criteria? No.

A patriarchy would indicate that the primary criteria for being a lead citizen in society is male genitalia.

What we are increasingly seeing is that the criteria are things such as family connections, money, business connections, political connections.

If the criteria were as simple as genitalia and hormones you would have long ago seen Black/Hispanic men overtake white women economically. What we have seen is white women making leaps and bounds economically while Black and Hispanic men earn even less on the dollar.
The racial wage gap is real. The gender gap is easily explained.

BKEnjoyerV2 · 2023-10-18T00:06:48+00:00

Depends on the society, in more traditional societies yes, not so much in more progressive societies

dungeonmonkey69 · 2023-10-18T07:58:22+00:00

Nope. It doesn't

JJnanajuana · 2023-10-19T03:36:27+00:00

Patriarchy is a weirdly fluffy concept.

Like a fluffy dog!

I could get into disagreements or feel uncertain about what is and isn't "dog".

Does "dog" end where the wet dog ends? Do I include the fluffy fur in as "dog". If I push fluffy out of the way, would the place where that was be "dog"?

I don't know, maybe, maybe not, Does it matter?

But then someone has come along and pointed out that their whole house is covered in dog fur, so their house is "dog".

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2023-10-22T15:12:41+00:00

Patriarchy did literally exist. Tribal societies evolved from extended families, with usually some sort of strong or wise man at the top. The current or former best warrior or hunter, the senior or most fit male heir of a respected previous authority figure, or maybe a wise shaman, but usually male and ruling indeed as a sort of remote uncle being in charge of family assets in a fee tail / trust for the whole tribe. Tribes sometimes evolved into clans, which took in septs that were not related by blood but accepted the authority of their new high chief, and so on. The first monarchies may have been difficult to tell apart from highly evolved chieftaincies. Smaller family units continued to be relevant in all sorts of ways, including some form of feudal-like hierarchy of immediate-family heads reporting to the extended-family head. I suppose even in the West that was still felt in the 19th and 20th centuries. Also noble families, from the top aristocracy to the low landed gentry. Or merchant houses. Except such 'patriarchal' subdivisions of society were not infrequently headed by more experienced matrons rather than young and inexperienced male members of the family. The feminist fallacy consists in representing the old social and political systems not as a sort of traditional distribution of roles or even unequal franchise but as a form of outright slavery and chattel ownership of women, which was clearly not the case, except perhaps for what sociopaths in positions of power were able to get away with (e.g. what a lord could do to his wife under a weak king and with her family in extinction, exile or disgrace or mismanagement). This is similar to the deranged generalizations feminists make, like claiming that all men are allowed to sit at a table with their legs far apart and belch, fart and scratch their crotch (which is obviously false to the point it's not even an exaggeration but a fabricated or more likely delusional invention), so — here's the crucial part — women should be too. Or like a man explaining something is always 'mansplaining', especially if to a woman, but the same behaviour with genders reversed doesn't incur any censure (as it usually in fact shouldn't because everything begins and ends with a person's low self-esteem and hypersensitivity with a vivid imagination, so that when they hear an explanation they get triggered and begin to relive scenarios in their heads).

The common denominator in those outlandish generalizations seems to be either some form of cynicism, which I don't think is the real answer, or some form of emotional dysregulation affecting the intellectual reasoning, or some other cognitive problem. Like hypersensitivity and PTSD affecting someone's reasoning. Perhaps not so much swaying the actual reasoning (inference) as producing a compulsion to defiantly make generalizations that are overblown, as if some kind of challenge. And it could well be some form of challenge.

Another real case of patriarchy is the organization of the family under Roman law, with almost always the pater familias at the top, not necessarily the actual father. Adult younger brothers (let alone uncles) were not under his authority, but adult sons were (an adult son would be emancipated by his father's death, although this was usually done earlier by a specific act). Women indeed had a legal position akin to children, down to the point of the wife (if in manu) practically being legally her husband's daughter, which is why aristocrats preferred to avoid the passing of the authority from the father to the husband (sine manu marriages). To some extent, European legal systems inherited this (femina coverta and so on) to varying extents (definitely not the same in every country), and it often stayed that way for a long time, even into after WW2 in Western Europe (in contrast with Central Europe, which is modernly being painted as a hotbed of patriarchy despite being in verifiable historical fact more progressive than the West). Obviously, that sometimes led to abuse. The scale is debatable, although certainly it shouldn't be measured with the yardstick of the boundaries of the literary imagination of novelists and other fiction writers.

There is some merit to 'patriarchy hurts men too' because that system which misandrists try — without historical understanding and understanding of the circumstances of the past, viewing them through the perspective of the beholder's current circumstances, as an anachronism — to peddle as a form of systemic oppression and almost slavery of women, was not a college frat party. It was not an 'all the power to the boys' system symmetrically to the modern 'grrrlpower' movement. The basis and purpose of it was not the pure enjoyment of the authority and its arbitrary exercise. Although abuses did happen, the purpose was responsibility, in a tough world where men had to be tough, in which physical combat was frequent all the way through the Middle Ages and to a lesser extent after that. Women were recipients of special protection from the system that men were not granted. Men were expected to sacrifice — even their lives — for the women. Giving up your lifeboat seat to a woman, what was 'patriarchy'. Tying two or three thugs up in combat you can't win so the woman can make her escape was 'patriarchy'. Working two shifts a day to support her financially was 'patriarchy'. This is ahistorically ignored by politicized feminists, who will just tell you, ironically, that rule by men is evidently detrimental even to men, so it follows that women should be put in charge. Basically a shallow interpretation of history and poor scholarship in social sciences.

So patriarchy has existed. In some parts of the world's population it still exists… and often doesn't actually meet with much censure from feminists, which shows you that many of them aren't interested in improving the fate of women in e.g. certain ekhm… traditionally masculine societies, as much as they are in waging a sort of social and emotional war against Western men, who are often contrfactually portrayed as tyrannical despots while also (less contrfractually) as weaklings falling short of the standards of masculinity (for embracing the equality that feminism claims to be in favour of).

On the other hand, patriarchy the scarecrow does not exist. Patriarchy the scarecrow is something different from patriarchy the historical phenomenon.

The thing to be noted here is that Patriarchy is not the only fallacy used by female supremacists. Fallacy is a much broader modus operandi within that group. I may be jaded, but I would say even the basic, core MO of that group. The deficit of intellectual honesty is striking and it is ethically repulsive. It also produces a sense of betrayal in those men who had supported feminism, having been misled — as they now think or feel — to think it really was about equality.

Also, on some days I think there are nowhere such dedicated believers in and enforcers of 'Patriarchy' as among feminists themselves, because of how they not only effectively enforce traditional male gender roles to a greater degree than conservatives do, they also weaponize accusations of lacking masculinity, whether because of non-elective innate physical (appearance) traits such as low height but e.g. failure to achieve economic success in life, find prestige, get achievements, etc. Basically the turning of average men into second-class citizens at best and punching bags at worst. Feminists claim it's toxic masculinity, but the problem is that it's them themselves exhibiting it and not a man, and that 'internalized misogyny' cannot explain it, nor can the issue be flipped to somehow be men's fault.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2023-10-22T15:16:05+00:00

As for the reason why 'Patriarchy' is mentally associated as a Left-wing proposition is simply that it's a feminist position and most feminists are Left-wing. While conservative or neutral men support some parts of feminism to varying extents (equal wage, suffrage, etc., being non-controversial), 'male feminists' are usually not even Left-leaning but firmly on the Left. You almost can't find a Right-wing 'male feminist' (except maybe his Right-winging is limited to being an economic libertarian) and if you do, he's going to be a very moderate feminist, not going all the way, not an anti-Patriarchy advocate. This is not to say that Right-wing men don't have 'internalized misandry' in them — they do, and by the boatload. But they act like traditional 'white knights', i.e. servants and protectors of the ladies, not as 'male feminists'. Consequently, they will not be in the business of talking about 'Patriarchy'. Or they will claim Patriarchy is real but it is a good thing and should be restored, although perhaps changed somewhat, where the main problem is that men are no longer men enough and have failed as providers and protectors, for which they owe women and should make it up to them.

People also recognize (neo-)Marxist patterns in the militant anti-male/supremacist brand of radical feminism, e.g. struggle for domination with no place for co-existence in solidarity, in the most militant misandry activists. Women are portrayed by it as the oppressed class that must fight until it's not just un-oppressed but actually gets to do the oppressing — on a scale that it itself had never been subject to. Basically supremacy and domination by the hitherto oppressed class (women as the 'proletariat'), perhaps all the way to annihilation or abject subjugation of the hostile classes (dekulakization of men, with no option of parity of status, just the turning of the table on what misandrists claim was the past oppression). Anybody familiar with Marxism-Leninism and the history of communism in Central and Eastern Europe is going to see the similarities (with women substituted for the oppressed working class). Someone with a more benign experience of polite and peaceful social democracy may see the similarities less clearly.

2023-10-23T23:11:47+00:00

Patriarchy does not exist in western countries today.

In non-progressive country? Probably.

But most countries are slowly moving out of their old ideals; women are working outside, being SAHM isn't always sustainable, and materialistically people aren't going to practice old gender roles to a strict extent.

Professional-You2968 · 2023-10-31T07:19:58+00:00

Do the zodiac signs exists?

YallGotAnyBeanz · 2023-11-15T19:19:29+00:00

No, it doesn’t.

Illustrious_Ad_5406 · 2023-12-03T07:48:33+00:00

Patriarchy has not existed in the United States since 1919. Women are allowed to hold positions of power, to vote, to own land etc. Left ideologues have a habit of twisting the definitions of words to suit their own political goals. What was once a term with a very specific meaning is now extremely broad so as to be vague and unfalsifiable.

redditstrawhouse · 2024-03-01T21:48:09+00:00

I know this post is five months old, but the whole patriarchy ruse can be summarized into some conversations I've had. If men were getting the vast majority of secondary education, that would be a clear indication of patriarchy, however women getting the vast majority of secondary education was also explained to me as a result of the patriarchy.

Title	Does The "Patriarchy" Truly Exist?
Author	Skeleton_Warrior
Upvotes	102
Comments	56
Date	October 16, 2023 11:04 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/179jjqr/does_the_patriarchy_truly_exist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/does-the-patriarchy-truly-exist.1235365 https://theredarchive.com/post/1235365

Comments