My recent discovery within Patriarchy theory.

ssj4kevin · 2012-09-13T05:03:24+00:00

Lots of MRAs think that what feminists call 'the patriarchy' exists, they just disagree with the framing of the concept. For example, the very word 'patriarchy' suggests that women are essentially living in a world where they are dominated by men, which is untrue. It is also framed as being something which was developed by men and added into culture with the express purpose of dominating women. In reality, what feminists call 'patriarchy' is largely psychological and biological gender differences which developed through evolutionary processes. It's not learned, it's part of our instincts. Men are psychologically predisposed to providing for and protecting their families because of evolution. Women are predisposed to tending to children because of evolution. Most MRAs don't deny that patriarchy exists in SOME way, they just believe 'patriarchy' is a poor word since it developed as a mutually beneficial arrangement for women and men through natural evolutionary processes, and they believe feminists falsely attribute its existence to something other than evolution.

shrodingerstherapist · 2012-09-13T06:18:55+00:00

According to the wikipedia page on radfem, patriarchy theory views patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form and the model for all others." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism)

Is it just me, or is that incredibly narcissistic and self-obsessed? Oh, poor me! I'm a woman, therefore I'm not only oppressed, I'm the only one with a right to call myself oppressed!

dumbguyscene28 · 2012-09-13T05:24:27+00:00

I disagree that Patriarchy exists. Or that it exists in any meaningful way other than as invisible sky demon.

Take a look at the Finally Feminism 101 Faq blog.

Look at two definitions.

Look at Patriarchy, where they explicitly exclude 99.999% of men and admit that women are part of the Patriarchy.

Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy.

*Non-elite men do not generally actively conspire with Patriarchs (although they may aspire to become one): the patriarchal pattern however means that subordinate men are ranked above subordinate women in the traditional socioeconomic hierarchy from which Patriarchs skim the cream, meaning that men (as a group) benefit more from the injustices of Patriarchy than women do (as a group). *

So on the one hand, they admit that most men are not part of the Patriachy, the invisible sky demon that rules society.

Then in the next breath they assert Patriarchy Hurts Men Too, oh how they love that phrase.

Finally in the definition of sexism they will say that

sexism is prejudice plus power

and

Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

So.

Patriarchy rules over and corrupts society
Most men are not part of patriarchy (most men have no power)
Some women are part of patriarchy
Sexism = prejudice + power
Women cannot be sexist towards men (women have no power)
All men can be sexist towards women (which requires men to have power)

The bold parts contradict each other. Conclusion: Feminism and/or Patriarchy Theory is self-contradictory.

Basically Patriarchy Theory is an untestable, unfalsifiable theory. Skeptics are wise reject such theories. They cannot be proven, they cannot be falsified.

And as we wander through society today, we see more and more women with much more power and rule throughout society.

So what is Patriarchy Theory really? Seems to be known as Society which was formed jointly by men and women, plus a heaping helping of bullying of men.

Reject invisible sky demons. Require feminists to have testable theories.

Gedanken experiment (and since I have not taken a college level course in feminism I really have no idea what the reality of this experiment is.)

Gedanken experiment in Patriarchy Theory:

Estimate the number of papers written in college or graduate school that analyze some issue or problem in society by "blaming it on the Patriarchy".
Now estimate the number of papers written in college or graduate school that TRIED TO analyze some issue or problem in society by "blaming it on the Patriarchy" but whose conclusion was: "As a result of our research, we conclude the Patriarchy was not to blame for this issue".

Pureos · 2012-09-13T05:37:16+00:00

There are several reasons why I have an extreme aversion to the word "patriarchy." First of all, it's a gendered term that puts the onus of societal and gender problems on men while removing it from women. Gender roles were not imagined and implemented by some group of men, they evolved based on biological and societal factors through the years due to pressures from both genders; using such a gendered term only helps to purport the myth that it was solely men who built this system.

Second, whatever "patriarchy" might have originally meant, it is now a completely generic term used to cover any circumstance that feminists decide it needs to. Women are being sexualized because they're wearing revealing clothing? Patriarchy. Women are being repressed because they are forced to wear burqas? Patriarchy. Literally anything and everything problematic is a result of patriarchy, and coupled with the gendering mentioned earlier, those problems are inferred to be only men's fault.

Third, the term "patriarchy" is used as a bludgeon to silence any dissent or bully men into following feminist dogma. Men aren't allowed to talk about gender issues at all because they're privileged from of patriarchy. Any time a man succeeds over a woman it is because of patriarchy. Men don’t need any help in their lives because they already benefit from patriarchy. These are common arguments thrown out to batter men who dare to step outside the confines of feminism.

These are the three major reasons I despise the term “patriarchy” whenever it is brought up in relation to gender roles, though they are not the only ones. “Patriarchy” is a loaded term that has become wholly ineffective at conveying any solid idea, but is rather molded into whatever its user needs it to be (much like the “feminist” label itself). Arguing that patriarchy is responsible for men’s problems too is asinine and used to shoehorn MRAs into believing “feminism is the solution to men’s problems too.”

As a addendum, I would like to add that I agree with you: the pressures that direct women into certain gender roles are closely related to the same forces acting upon men (societal expectations, genders norms, but that's a whole different discussion). It would be supremely helpful if both movements could work together to fight these forces with a united front, but due to feminists insistence that it all stems from patriarchy (as well as certain darker aspects of the feminist movement), I find their position irreconcilable and will not validate such nonsense in the vain hopes of gaining feminism's approval.

kanuk876 · 2012-09-13T06:25:32+00:00

In short:

Judge a movement by its accomplishments, not its words.

Judge a feminist by her/his actions, not their words.

Judge N.O.W. by its legislation, not its words.

Cartesian_Duelist · 2012-09-13T07:29:23+00:00

Patriarchy theory suffers from what is known as the genetic fallacy. I plan to write a post about this sometime this week, but essentially, to deem most of the issues modern men face in the west 'patriarchy' is absurd. Just because something has a tangential link or connection to a past practice does not automatically make it derived from that practice. Can you really call a system wherein women hold practical exclusive power in the dating realm and thus demand a provider, a lover and so much more as rooted in 'patriarchy', just because you can tangentially link the traditional provider role to a past practice wherein men needed to provide for women?

Societal institutions and practices evolve. I don't shake the hands of the men I meet to check for daggers, nor do I plan to marry my fiancee because I want to have sex/own her etc. 'Stranger danger' is often said to be rooted in patriarchy, but it's a new phenomena, and is primarily the result of gender ideologues framing masculinity as inherently harmful and predatory. That men in the past were expected to have less emotions and be more aggressive does not make it the root of the reason men are seen as predators in the modern age.

builtbro · 2012-09-13T07:27:37+00:00

I reject patriarchy "theory" for the same simple reason I reject critical theory, post-structuralism, women's studies, urban semiotic interpretation, neo-trans-normative queer theory, environmental Marxist constructionism, and any other social "science" garbage that endlessly gushes out of humanities departments that you might wish to name.

It's all the same unfalsifiable, subjective opinion masquerading as objective fact horseshit. Scientists doing real science who KNOW what Popperian falsifiability really is, who KNOW what investigator degrees of freedom are and how to constrain them, who KNOW what double-blinding means, who KNOW what placebo control does, who KNOW what the importance of replicability means to a study and who therefore KNOW what it means to ACTUALLY KNOW something laugh at this kind of bullshit. It's just as crap-filled now as it was 20 years ago when Alan Sokal utterly demolished the field with his epic hoax, and as it was similarly two decades before that with Feynman's apotheosis on cargo cult science.

2012-09-13T06:16:53+00:00

just that the core theory isn't totally bogus as it encompasses mens negative stereotypes too.

But heres the kicker, They don't pay any attention to them! The framework within Patriarchy theory lines up pretty damn well with most men's rights issues Ive seen.

yes, we've heard it. PHMT. it's a conciliatory touch-stone between base 1: "yes men are suffering sometimes in ways that we have found it impossible to ignore because those athiest-goddess damned ehmarrays wont stfu" and base 3: "so lets get back to helping feminism help men by helping men help women."

rottingchrist · 2012-09-13T07:47:33+00:00

The theory in itself isn't really wrong.

It is.

now hear me out! I'm not saying what some feminists are pushing as "This is why men are awful" is at all correct. just that the core theory isn't totally bogus as it encompasses mens negative stereotypes too.

The theory says that all men are privileged and have power over all women due to the societal institutions that men built. Which translates to all men oppressing all women in a patriarchal society. It means that you, just by existing, are oppressing women.

You want to tell me that this theory is "not wrong"?

The framework for showing how the system (feminists like to call Patriarchy) exploits men is right in there. Its just not garnered much if any attention in a movement driven by a desire to "Make women equal to men!"

There is a system in place that exploits men, and women, and also children and puts them into societal boxes that they aren't supposed to step out of.

However, that system isn't the same as the "patriarchy" of feminists.

What is your experience with patriarchy theory?

I think it's unadulterated bunk. And it leads to conclusions that inexorably paint all men as rapists and oppressors of women.

The radfems actually use logic much better in interpreting their own theory than the "moderate" feminists.

Do you think filling in the blanks could be a stepping stone to a better discourse between the movements?

I don't think feminists have anything to offer men apart from hatred and malevolence. The very premise their ideology is based on leads to the demonization of all men.

I see no benefit in trying to have a "discourse" with them.

AloysiusC · 2012-09-13T07:39:09+00:00

The term "patriarchy" is itself sexist and oppressive. That is what makes it so easy to misuse by misandrists. It's the same with "feminism" - highly sexist but supposedly being against sexism. There is no reason to call a system "patriarchy" if it isn't somehow benefiting men more than women.

Feminism will never be about equality until it rids itself of its own sexist axioms and the resulting doublethink.

Sebatron · 2012-09-13T13:55:59+00:00

The theory in itself isn't really wrong.

The theory is vague enough that it is (currently) not falsifiable, which means it has to be thrown out and kept out until it is falsifiable.

Do you think filling in the blanks could be a stepping stone to a better discourse between the movements?

If by 'fill in the blanks', you mean make it into a falsifiable theory, then yes, it would lead to better discourse.

ExpendableOne · 2012-09-13T15:19:16+00:00

"Equal rights" under the delusional ideological premise of patriarchy will never be true equal rights.

DavidByron · 2012-09-13T16:08:45+00:00

myself as much as the next Jew have all had run ins with "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" theory a term often used as proof to shame Jews away from certain arguments. Claiming that Jews receive exclusive privilege in society and therefore are unable to objectively understand non-Jews's oppression.

Sound better now?

DavidByron · 2012-09-13T16:12:53+00:00

It's pretty typical for a hate movement to have a conspiracy theory (or several) that says its hated enemy is all powerfully running the world. I think even the KKK said it of black former slaves which is really pushing credulity (but they got around it by saying that blacks were used as muscle by the international Papal conspiracy to control the world from Rome or some shit).

That is all "patriarchy theory" is. A crazy conspiracy theory by a bunch of hatemongers.

Hach8 · 2012-09-13T17:20:19+00:00

Gender Equity Feminist is like saying, Racist Egalitarian, or Violent Pacifist.

Aside from that, the idea that there are social stereotypes and ideals that disadvantage men is nothing new to the MRM. Patriarchy theory would be fine, but there are a couple problems. First is psychological second is practical.

The first problem is that patriarchy is a label applied to a male dominant culture, and it attributes everything negative a male gender, whether or not that is the case. There's a strong argument to be made that in many situations and settings men are disadvantaged because of women, but those disadvantages are glossed over by patriarchy theory.

The second problem is practical. It isn't a useful theory because it doesn't provide any real solutions. Opposing the "patriarchy" generally just means elevating women, but because of the earlier mentioned problem with the patriarchy that is unlikely to improve the situation for men.

There is little the men's rights movement can gain from patriarchy, other than understanding trying to use a one brush label to paint all their problems with a gender simply isn't realistic or helpful. That is the lesson we should learn from "patriarchy."

namae_nanka · 2012-09-13T17:36:57+00:00

Christina Hoff Sommers coined the terms gender feminism and equity feminism. What exactly is a 'gender equity feminist'?

The problem with taking patriarchy theory and the 'feminism helps men too' as being trustworthy nevermind 'right', is that there is a lack of historical perspective amongst people, sometimes even the feminists themselves(including Sommers herself). Some people think that feminism just started in the last 50 years. The truth is much different.

For example a feminist would speak of feminism giving men gender-equality in child custody as opposed to 'patriarchy' giving it away to mothers who were locked into the role of primary child-carers. While it was a feminist who changed the laws to maternal custody in the first place. See here:

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-06-where-are-all-the-men-in-the-have-it-all-debate#comment-575318911

"The theory in itself isn't really wrong. now hear me out!"

Here is a feminist theory.

"Feminism is a power grab by (man-hating) women called feminists who have the chutzpah to claim that they have done the most for women by simply positing themselves as a necessary intermediary between transfers of knowledge/resources/technology/opportunities from men to women, and then disparaging and working towards eradicating the source."

namae_nanka · 2012-09-13T17:50:04+00:00

"Patriarchy as the feminists like to phrase it is the system in which we are now a part of."

So the enemies of a system define the system. mmkay

"Isn't it this system were pissed off at for promoting negative male stereotypes? and treating women like their completely helpless and couldn't hurt a fly? "

and then we believe them!

"But there was no special line of demarcation as regards the punishment of offences as between men and women. The penalty ordained by the law for crime or misdemeanour was the same for both and in general applied equally to both.

Likewise in civil suits, proceedings were not specially weighted against the man and in favour of the woman. There was, as a general rule, no very noticeable sex partiality in the administration of the law.

This state of affairs continued in England till well into the nineteenth century. Thenceforward a change began to take place. Modern Feminism rose slowly above the horizon."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism/Chapter_1

The problem with modern(heh look at the use of 'modern' in above excerpt) discourse of ideologies, of which feminism is a part, is that they are arguing by false premises and mostly using the terminology of those whom they are supposed to be arguing against! There is no real debate when the terms of the debate have been framed by those opposing you.

AloysiusC · 2012-09-13T07:42:08+00:00

I have an idea: Why not call it matriarchy theory? That is every bit as justified as the other and since feminists obviously don't mind the genderization of terms, they are SURELY going to accept this, right?

Here's my suggestion: if feminists widely accept "matriarchy theory" as a valid term for the structural sexist issues in society, then I'll happily accept "patriarchy theory". Up for it, femibabes?

mellymelz89 · 2012-09-13T05:08:46+00:00

Thank you for that, its nice to see a MRA and Feminist have a civil conversation, 2. I would like to spread this on, its not really a patriarchy but more of a Kyriarchy (Kyriarchy is basicly higher classes oppressing most of society not just men).

dumbguyscene28 · 2012-09-13T05:45:56+00:00

Oh, there is an interesting question as to how authoritative the Finally Feminist 101 FAQ blog is regarding feminism, however, it is cited by many feminist blogs, and it is cited by PZ Myers, and it has excerpts from some of our most famous feminists. So there's that.

Anyway, look at their page describing patriarchy.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

Patriarchy: one of the most misunderstood critical-theory concepts ever, often wilfully misunderstood. Patriarchy is one form of social stratification via a power/dominance hierarchy – an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a ranking of inferiorities) and its privileges. Societies can be (and usually are) patriarchal, oligarchal and plutocratic all at the same time, complicated by current and/or legacy features of sectarianism, imperialism and colonialism, so the gender hierarchy is only one source of social disparity. Because of the limited capacity of the word “patriarchy” to describe the full operation of intersecting oppressions, some now prefer to use the word “kyriarchy” instead, but it is not yet in common use.

Is there anything about this definition or explanatory paragraph (or the rest of the material on that page) that jumps out at you by its absence?

Anything? Anything? Bueller?

Is anyone here an anthropologist? Does feminism make any intellectual claims to anthropology (yes).

So does ANYTHING jump out of you here by its absence?

And just how telling is it, just how demeaning of women is it, just how misreprentative of patriarchy is it, that one clear obvious thing that is missing here?

2012-09-13T08:05:01+00:00

this has already been addressed

ErasmusMRA · 2012-09-13T09:47:18+00:00

I've never seen patriarchy theory formally defined so I never paid much attention to it. If there is a rigorous definition of patriarchy theory then I'd like to see it.

My current understanding of patriarchy theory is that it's so bad it's not even wrong. It makes no useful predictions and it's vague enough to give itself plenty of wiggle room to prevent falsification.

TheBrohemian · 2012-09-13T14:30:06+00:00

Men can never objectively understand women's struggles. Conversely, women can never objectively understand men's struggles.

When fighting for equality, it is important to be gender neutral.

ENTP · 2012-09-13T16:47:01+00:00

Kyriarchy is the non-sexist term for it.

It is silly to name an oppressive system after the demographic hurt the most by it.

2012-09-13T20:29:05+00:00

While it's nice to know that men's oppression was included, I'll stick to believing we live in a Kyriarchy - a world of many overlapping privileges.

As a woman, I have the privilege of total control over my reproduction. As part of the upper-middle class, I have wealth privilege (and am reminded of that privilege as my 2IC at work is lower on the wealth scale, and we do talk about what we're going to do with our hard-earned money). As a caucasion, I have the privilege of not being racially stereotyped.

So no, I won't subscribe to Patriarchy theory. I'll stick with Kyriarchy.

2012-09-14T00:48:08+00:00

The problem with "Patriarchy Theory" is this...

Male "losers", ie, every male who isn't strong enough or earn enough money, etc, is completely fucking invisible to women. So women see one dude (or a small group of dudes) at the top of a ladder and go "MEN ARE SO PRIVILEGED, LOOK AT THOSE MEN UP THERE!" not realizing that, in order for those few men to be there, there's about half a million corpses of men and another five million men enslaved.

mikesteane · 2012-09-14T07:27:09+00:00

Would you care to tell us what this theory that "isn't really wrong" is, so we can make our own judgements?

rightsbot · 2012-09-13T04:54:18+00:00

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

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-09-13T06:14:35+00:00

Maybe because it's late, but this seems rather suspicious of a troll trying to couch "the patriarchy hurts men too".

Assuming I remember, I'll read this thread more thoroughly and try to give a proper response.

hardwarequestions · 2012-09-13T05:13:27+00:00

[permanently deleted]

marbledog · 2012-09-13T07:10:03+00:00

Great observation. I've been trying to push this line of though for a while. Patriarchal systems devalue the freedom and autonomy of women whilst simultaneously devaluing the lives and comfort of men. It is a product of evolution and is observable, in various forms, in other animals. Like all organic systems, it is largely unintentional. That is, no one designed patriarchy; it evolved as a consequence of our biology. It harms everyone, and everyone is a part of it. We all have to work together to end it.

Title	My recent discovery within Patriarchy theory.
Author	Pureos
Upvotes	31
Comments	73
Date	September 13, 2012 4:52 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/zt3gu/my_recent_discovery_within_patriarchy_theory/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/my-recent-discovery-within-patriarchy-theory.1013615 https://theredarchive.com/post/1013615

Comments