I want to try and provide a concrete example for folks of a kind of analysis and criticism of feminist theory, specifically of patriarchy as an overarching concept. As stated here I am tending to view gendered issues via a heteronormative complex with a significant queer component (HCQ) framework rather than a patriarchal one. This is not a particularly novel take, it has been taught in gender studies at university for decades.

What does that style of criticism look like in action?

I've posted two videos from a feminist here, which are examples of a feminist using a patriarchal framework in a way that isn't inherently denying the matriarchy or the heteronormative complex. She speaks of things in terms of the patriarchy, it is pretty clearly the framework she is utilizing, but she doesn't use it in a way that shields women from facing the agency and power they have in society. Fwiw, she comes at this from a philosophy heavy perspective, which appears to be a fairly common perspective to have if one is discussing these issues in a non-asinine way.

She, like some other feminists who are speaking cogently on these topics, cites and stem themselves academically from Simone de Beauvoir. I mention that so folks can use it as a rough gauge for determining if a feminist is likely to be well grounded or not. Feminists speaking positively bout beauvoir are likely to not be asinine, in other words. Doesn't guarantee it, but it is something to watch for. I don't necessarily agree with everything either cappelle or beauvoir say, and there are plenty of other such feminist authors out there that one could likewise note to 'spot a non-asinine feminist', they're just good representatives of a style of feminist thought that isn't asinine.

Here I want to point out a style of analysis that feminists have regularly used to critique philosophical works so we can apply it well to feminists' use of the patriarchal framework- "can the work be interpreted in such a way that it is consistent with basic feminist theory?" In other words, one doesn't have to agree with what the philosophy is saying, one merely has to determine if and where it may violate such things as equality or equitability of treatment between the sexes and genders.

So, for example, we might hold that Aristotelian thought is not anti feminist despite endorsing slavery bc it doesn't distinguish between the sexes or genders in its claims. We might still disagree with the philosophy for other reasons, slavery bad, but we wouldn't say of Aristotle that he was a sexist. At least not for those reasons at any rate.

In a similar way you can look at cappelle's pieces here, or any other feminists' works and despite her use of a patriarchal framework, we can ask 'are the things she's saying actually consistent within an HCQ?' in other words, does what cappelle say either explicitly or implicitly deny the matriarchy, queer people, the agency of either, or in sum, the HCQ.

I think in both these videos she does not do so, at least not obviously so. Though that is the mode of the questioning to be asking, and there could be aspects I missed, as I didn't closely study these pieces.

Here it is important to note that there is such a thing as a patriarchy, and a matriarchy, and a queerarchy. These just each refer to the power structures that exist in society for these respective broad groupings of people. Hence, one can talk bout patriarchy, the power centers that uphold distinctively male power structures in society, without necessarily denying the matriarchy or the queerarchy, the power centers that uphold distinctively female and queer power structures respectively. How those differing power structures interact with each other constitutes the dynamics of society. At least as they pertain to gender and sexuality.

I'd also note that it can be very helpful to move the discussion from 'power' to 'norms of behavior', as in, what norms of behavior are upholding various social structures that impede an equitable or equal society. However, so much of the discourse is currently focused on 'power structures' that it is likely more helpful to understand the principle in those terms.

this is significantly different than merely noting that things ought be equal or equitable, in that it is critiquing the power structures that are in place which prevent such equality or equitability from taking form. It is also very plausible that strict equality cannot be obtained, only equitability, and hence there will tend to be some meaningful power differences predicated upon one's sex and gender. So one doesn't get very far by just saying 'things ought be equal or even equitable', cause sure, but:

a) what does that look like in reality?

b) what are the gendered and sexual social structures that are impeding that?

c) what are the gendered and sexual social structures that lend themselves towards creating that?

To answer those questions, we have to actually interrogate those gendered power structures, behavioral norms, not just individually either, but also in how they are interacting with each other.

Both by Alice Cappelle

how liberal feminism turns into fascism

the gen alpha moral panic, education under capitalism

Folks interested in pursuing the criticism of feminism along these lines would do well simply trying to listen to what cappelle is saying in these videos, and ponder to what extent they may not violate the HCQ framework. If anyone wants, feel free to put examples from whatever source in the replies, and we can perhaps discuss them there.

​