About patriarchy

JockeVXO · 2012-02-20T18:57:56+00:00

why would every single culture around the world have indipendently ended up into a patriarchal system?

Not every single culture did. Most of the matriarchal societies are gone now, or are unheard of by the majority of people, like the Rhade of the Vietnam/Cambodian highlands.

Chamoflage · 2012-02-20T20:01:11+00:00

Wouldn't it instead provide for proof that if it does exist as it is claimed, it must be the consequence of human biology rather than culture?

No. Survival of the fittest applies to societies and cultures as much as to individual organisms. If patriarchies are the only cultures to survive to modern day, it is likely that non-patriarchal cultures lack the durability to go on existing, for any of a number of reasons.

Maybe such cultures are inherently unstable and collapse in upon themselves. Maybe such cultures are inherently weak, culturally, economically, or militaristically, and are thus converted, bribed, or conquered by patriarchal societies. Maybe such cultures cannot continue to exist because they conflict with the inherent biology of the species that created and maintained them. There's no way to say that any one of these is more or less likely a cause of the assumed ubiquity of patriarchal societies.

ENTP · 2012-02-21T02:25:34+00:00

Here's the beef I have with "patriarchy".

The use of the word patriarchy by feminists in a Western, industrialized context downplays and marginalizes ACTUAL patriarchies that exist in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and much of the 3rd world.

Women in Western cultures enjoy an extraordinary amount of privilege, and by privilege, I don't mean some sort of shadowy, abstract concept that cannot be shown or proven (which they also have), I mean the actual definition of "privilege" which comes from the Latin for "private law".

For instance, almost every state has a "Council on the Status of Women" and official police doctrine is based on the "Duluth Model" which is a feminist built model in which men are accused (without evidence) of enjoying patriarchal privilege, and therefore not subject to due process. In addition, women have a whole set of assault laws that applies only to them, and actively harms male victims of domestic violence (VAWA).

A quick browsing of incarceration statistics, and the fact that men are given much longer sentences for the same crimes as women, also gives a strong indicator of who the truly "privileged" gender is.

Feminism enjoys a privileged position in Universities, and even in other fields, that are not wholly gender related, such as sociology, in which the biased feminist viewpoint is taught as canon. Don't believe me? Check out your Uni's class schedule, and look up "Feminist Sociology" and "Women's/Gender Studies". Most of the other liberal arts courses at University are also taught and graded by feminists, who usually push their unsubstantiated viewpoints as dogma (a film class I just took was a great example of this, I got an A, because I knew what she wanted to hear, as much as it pained me to write it).

Feminist doctrine paints the average man as powerful and privileged by illogically making the assumption that since there is an exceedingly small, powerful portion of society that happens to be composed largely of men (with more and more women joining their ranks) that somehow, magically, this benefits the average man.

Then, using the faulty reasoning I outlined in the previous paragraph, they use this "privilege" as an excuse to ignore

Homelessness, a demographic composed mostly of men.
Suicide, an awful tragedy in which the primarily effected persons, the victims of suicide, are mostly of men.
MGM, an awful, strange phenomenon that affects almost exclusively men (in Western cultures, obviously FGM is still a huge issue in the 3rd world).

Usually, a feminist will pipe up at this point with claims of "benevolent sexism", which when you think about it... is nothing but a form of victim blaming, really. Men are the victims of these issues, yet somehow it is still the fault of men.

So, in a country where "feminism" is the official doctrine of law enforcement, legislation, the judicial system, the executive branch (joe biden) and the educational system, it's a little difficult to take claims of "patriarchy" and "pervasive male privilege" seriously.

misseff · 2012-02-20T18:26:15+00:00

I think you should ask this in a feminist subreddit, I'd be interested to see the answers. The question doesn't come off as inflammatory. Though I don't have a lot of experience with feminist subreddits, there has to be at least one that would be accepting of this question, no?

As a feminist, I think it'd be hard to say that biology wouldn't factor in(and like you said, that's if we're not questioning those three claims/assumptions), at least in terms of women being biologically "disadvantaged" by being the ones who carry children and therefore end up being the main caretakers in most cases.

critropolitan · 2012-02-21T10:31:20+00:00

Your understanding of patriarchy is incorrect: patriarchy is not brought about by superstructural, cultural epiphenomena...those who understand and have a plausible account of the concept instead believe that patriarchy arises from the means of production or the economic base of agricultural economies.

Your implicit assumption that cultures differ tremendously and therefore patriarchy arising independently everywhere from culture seems implausible is basically correct.

But the only possible sources of a social institution are not only superficial cultural features, or human biology, therefore leading one to believe that if culture is not responsible, then biology must be...the even more powerful source of social practices is the economy.

The economic theory of patriarchy is as follows:

in hunter gatherer societies, both men and women can and do gather food. Men are somewhat more powerful in these societies because their superior strength gives them a somewhat greater capability to gather protein rich food through hunting, and their greater physical fitnesses gives them some baseline advantage over women in social disputes arising in pre-state societies.
In agricultural societies that have developed heavy plows and animal husbandry, women are generally at a very substantial disadvantage in producing food since men, with greater upper body strength, are able to control large animals pulling heavy plows with far greater competence. The result is that women in these agricultural societies are completely dependent on men for nutrition and not vice versa (whereas, women in hunter gatherer societies are not quiet equal but can contribute something).
The result is that the transition from hunter-gatherer means of production to heavy agriculture comes with it the imposition of male dominance as a result of substantial male superiority in gathering resources. In fact, this is consistent with the historical record: while not necessarily egalitarian, hunter gatherer tribes tend are often matrilineal and rarely if ever relegate women to the status of chattel. Pre-industrial agricultural societies (and to an even greater extent, pastoral societies) however almost universally have related women to a property like status legally dependent on their fathers or husbands (and as described, women in these societies usually really are dependent on males, so the loss of power and great inequality makes sense as a result).
Industrial societies and post-industrial societies where the overwhelming majority of people work in fields where physical strength provides no productive advantage, are different. In those societies, physical differences between average men and average women do not confer a meaningful advantage on either. However because these (relatively young in the scheme of things) societies developed from agricultural societies, existing institutions of patriarchal power (the power of older family men over dependent wives and children, not of men generally - hence the term "patriarchal" rather than "male") remain. Traditionalist churches and patriarchal laws do not just automatically abolish themselves, and patriarchs who enjoy having an unpaid housecleaner, sex-provider and child-carer who they can boss around, do not just immediately give that up. Why should they, when they have an interest in preserving the now antiquated dynamics carried over from agricultural society?...
...However because there is no economic necessity behind these patriarchal institutions and practices in industrial and post-industrial societies, they can be vulnerable to political challenges and economic necessity (the need to increase the labor force for example). As a result, industrial and post-industrial societies where the logic of capitalism (which requires increased profits and thus greater labor force during the industrial stage) comes into conflict with the interests of patriarchy (where patriarchs enjoy greater power when women do not work) come into conflict...In this way the development of capitalism actually facilitates the liberation of women from patriarchy.
This is in fact how it has played out historically: women were under the domination of patriarchs for thousands of years with no progress in social or political advancement in agricultural societies...but with the advert of industrial capitalism women rapidly gained equal rights under the law and patriarchal power waned. In fact, the places where patriarchal power remains the strongest and women have the fewest rights (the Middle East, impoverished parts of Africa and parts of Asia) are precisely the places where the greatest part of the population has never been engaged in industrial production. On a certain level, the traditionalists who want to confine men and women to traditional gender roles, understand this, which is why people like Rick Santorum are so eager to encourage women to stay home and raise children while men work. This point is also really kind of awkward for certain leftist feminists (maybe why you don't necessarily hear about it) in that it demonstrates that, in fact, capitalism was the principle facilitating force behind women's legal equality, rather than the patriarchy somehow being a phenomena of capitalism (which makes no sense since it is far older).

Demonspawn · 2012-02-20T20:59:19+00:00

Excerpted from Rob's Blog

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?

Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.

When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.

So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.” .

. “Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”

For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”

You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.

And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!

She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival.

When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.

She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.

Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.

So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.

Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.

Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.

Have a look around the room you are in.

Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.

Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).

Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.

Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-02-20T20:49:54+00:00

why would every single culture around the world have indipendently ended up into a patriarchal system? Wouldn't it instead provide for proof that if it does exist as it is claimed, it must be the consequence of human biology rather than culture?

Something to consider is that around 70,000 years ago the human population was reduced to a few thousand individuals. IIRC, the timeline for when sexual division of labor occurred coincides with the neolithic age, and falls near that same point. Now that's not the end-all be-all evidence that proves everything, but it's probably not a mere coincidence that shortly after adopting a sexual division of labor that human societies became better at not dying out. Patriarchy was a system borne of practicality, informed by biology-both our own and the environments in which we lived.

fenderbender464 · 2012-02-20T19:18:28+00:00

Patriarchy exists because it = civilization. In a "natural" state all the women in a tribal unit would gravitate to the alpha male, who would monopolize them as part of his position. This would create a chaotic state of betas that get no sex plotting and fighting to gain the alpha position, with the women simply moving onto whoever claims the alpha.

Betas in this model therefore have no incentive to work for the greater good of the tribe. Instead, they would run off and/or plot to take down the alpha. Obviously nothing of substance gets done in this model. So, over time, tribal units came to understand that by guaranteeing a man's access to sex, they could exploit his labor for the greater good of the tribe. The concept of marriage which also arose independently worldwide reflects this. The guarantee of a chaste woman to take care of and love was and is a powerful incentive to work hard and get shit done as a man. So, strict rules to dissuade the women who would chase alphas promiscuously were put into place to ensure that lower status men in the tribe would contribute as well as have access to decent quality women.

Feminism has ruined this as it has undone all restrictions to women to chase alphas. Betas in today's society are faced with a mostly sexless life, or settling for scraps that alphas have already run through. Feminism is hypocritical because women will make betas run through hoops and emasculate themselves into long term relationships to have a chance of sex while rewarding alphas with no strings attached sex (not to mention the same traits feminists/modern women claim to hate in men manifest themselves in the men they actually sleep with).

So, what you see now is betas en masse withdrawing from the dating world and contributing to the greater good because there are hardly any "good" women left worth marrying or even committing the slightest of resources to. Sorry ladies, but it is hardwired into all men that we DO NOT want a woman who has "had her fun" with alphas and bad boys and is looking to settle. Chastity means more than "liberated" women think.

Feminism has reversed the situation of a minority of slutty women and majority marriageable women to a society of women who think having slept with 10 guys is no big deal.

Whisper · 2012-02-20T20:04:20+00:00

IF patriarchy does indeed exist

IF 2 + 2 = 5, then I am the Pope.

2 + 2 = 5
2 = 5 - 2
2 = 3
2 -1 = 3 -1
1 = 2
Construct the set that contains me and the Pope.
This set contains 2 entities.
Therefore this set contains one entity.
Therefore I am the Pope.

Anything follows from a false premise.

gifforc · 2012-02-20T20:42:52+00:00

Patriarchy does exist.

It exists and more importantly it works.

It's not a chide towards women, it doesn't mean women should be looked upon as second rate citizens. We're biologically different beings, women and men. So naturally men lead, and naturally women caretake.

Throw us in the jungle again and I doubt women will complain about those roles. They've worked since the beginning of time. I wish the world would quit trying to make us all a bunch of fucking oranges when it's completely fine to be a single basket of several different fruits.

I come from patriarchy. I practice patriarchy. To see men do less makes me cringe.

PoundnColons · 2012-02-20T19:18:22+00:00

It's possible for a society to be most stable as patriarchal at an early stage of development (e.g. hunter-gatherer, tribal) and most efficient as equal or matriarchal at a later stage (e.g. technologically advanced beyond need for capitalist economies, statist)

Title	About patriarchy
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	10
Comments	59
Date	February 20, 2012 6:18 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/py22x/about_patriarchy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/about-patriarchy.1027342 https://theredarchive.com/post/1027342

Comments