Questions about Patriarchy

_EX · 2024-09-21T06:03:57+00:00

I'm curious about a few things. Do you think there are any societies in which the term patriarchy is actually a valid descriptor ? I think most on this...

[–]hendrixski 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hendrixski 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger8593 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_EX 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger85931 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iainmf[M] 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that's a good point. I guess I was referring to what other use it as in this subreddit, but its not often defined.

My definition would be something like "a society where the males are generally treated with higher value within the society (opportunity, rights, access) and where the societal structure is generally lead or "controlled" by men and by male interest"

An example I have would be a country like Saudi Arabia, where women have less rights, opportunity , and access. The rules and laws are usually focused on improving the way that men interact with the society (e.g women must cover themselves because the men feel that it is better or women are not allowed to leave a marriage because this is how the men think society will run smoother).

Another example would be where the father is in charge of the household. Decisions made by the father would not be overtly "male orientated" necessarily. However, if the person in charge is a male, the tendency would be that the decisions made would prioritize the interests of a male, rather than a female.

[–]sorebum405 1 year ago [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

My definition would be something like "a society where the males are generally treated with higher value within the society (opportunity, rights, access) and where the societal structure is generally lead or "controlled" by men and by male interest" An example I have would be a country like Saudi Arabia, where women have less rights, opportunity , and access. The rules and laws are usually focused on improving the way that men interact with the society (e.g women must cover themselves because the men feel that it is better or women are not allowed to leave a marriage because this is how the men think society will run smoother).

I think you have a one-sided view of Saudi Arabia. First off, even though men do cover up less, they still also have to follow a dress code that requires them to dress modestly.Also,why are you assuming that this is just what men want? Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country, could it not be possible that women want to cover up regardless of what men want because their following Islam?You also have to consider the fact that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship so men in general don't have a say in how the laws are.

Second, Women can get divorced,it is just more difficult for them,they have to have grounds for divorce.This is because when they divorce or a man decides to divorce them they are entitled to financial compensation called mahr. This is a large sum of money that is given to them after the divorce.

Saudi Arabia has alsobanned domestic violence against women only which essentially means that women can abuse men with impunity. In Saudi Arabia most execution are against men, and the largest mass execution was of 81 men.Lastly,I think it is worth noting that women report similar levels of happiness as men in saudi arabia.

This is why I don't think your definition of patriarchy exists anywhere. I don't think that there is any society that is just set up to benefit men.People just have a tendency to look at societies through a gynocentric lens, which means that they only focus on the disadvantages of women, and the advantages of men.

[–]_EX -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I am aware of the dress code but this is influenced by a patriarchal dictator government.

I'm sure you hate feminist saying it but patriarchy can also harm men in cases too. We can all understand that men throughout history have protected women and children, and sometimes that puts men to their death in war. It's a negative effect of a male orientated view. Men also not having a say or suffering from some rules too doesn't mean the system is controlled by men with male interest at the core in my opinion.

"Women can get divorced,it is just more difficult for them,they have to have grounds for divorce"

Then that would count as a point towards patriarchy. Even the reason you gave is to protect financial interest of the males. I'm not saying it's bad, or it should change. I'm just saying that the this is a rule that is made with one side in mind first.

Showing that men have been punished for abusing women or that women are happier is nothing to do with patriarchy. Patriarchy is a flavor of system. Patriarchy isn't necessarily bad. If men were happy in a matriarchy, I wouldn't say its not a matriarchy either.

" I don't think that there is any society that is just set up to benefit men." I 100% agree with you. No where is set up just for men. Patriarchal societies will often have things set up to help women too. That's not what the patriarchy means.

[–]sorebum405 1 year ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you hate feminist saying it but patriarchy can also harm men in cases too. We can all understand that men throughout history have protected women and children, and sometimes that puts men to their death in war. It's a negative effect of a male orientated view. Men also not having a say or suffering from some rules too doesn't mean the system is controlled by men with male interest at the core in my opinion.

This contradicts how feminists actually talk about patriarchy. Feminists' see patriarchy as a system that is set up only to benefit men at women's expense.This is why they come up with all of these false claims in an attempt to support patriarchy theory.Claims like the wage, pink tax, rape culture, the duluth model, etc.

All those claims I mentioned are about men deliberately setting up society to benefit themselves at women's expense. All of them are false. The only reason feminists' say "patriarchy hurts men too" is because Mra's have questioned patriarchy theory by pointing out male disadvantages that feminists' ignore. It is just an attempt to make all the evidence of male disadvantage fit into their false theory.

Another problem with patriarchy theory is that it blames men for everything.Feminists' talk as if men are are solely responsible for all the social norms that exist today and that women and selection pressures from the environment had no influence whatsover.The truth is that gender roles were created to ensure survival and reproduction in the hostile environment that we used to live in, and overtime it became engrained our culture. Men are no more to blame then women are. We just believe that they are due to biased perceptions of men and women's agency.

[–]_EX 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]sorebum405 1 year ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I never said it's dominated with overtly male interests or interested that benefit males specifically.

Like a father leading the household, there will be decisions made that are bias in the mindset of the father. Decisions made will have a tendency to male orientated as he will have a Blindspot to the way that a female matriarch would solve issues.

Unless you think there is no difference between the leadership that a patriarch provides vs what a matriarch provides, you must understand that a male leader will see things in a masculine way.

Even a father who is acting in the benefit of his son and daughter equally (or even if he prioritizes the benefit of his daughter more), the solutions and decision based on how a male thinks. Even if the father is trying to protect his daughter by creating rules that protect her, the way this rules are made will be bias towards how a male would solve that problem, now how a female would solve it. That gap is what I would call patriarchy. It's not good or bad. It's not helpful or harmful. It's different.

It's like a native Icelander moving to china, and seeing how the society is framed with the culture of Chinese in mind. There will be clear differences based on the culture that may prioritize culturally Chinese standards, and the icelandic person might feel "well, that solution doesn't really fit with me and how I would prefer".

Men and women are different like that, and when one side is in charge, it will lead to blindspots that might suit the other side more.

I feel like I've seen this before on this thread. Education in the west has been altered to favor placid and focused children. That system is logical and innocent, but we can see that girls do better in that system than boys, who are more active and suit a different style of education, leading to boys being overrepresented in ADHD and behavioral issues at school. There was no malice in that choice, but there was a bias outcome that was based on a somewhat female orientated style.

[–]sorebum405 1 year ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's not about in-group bias or out-group bias.

It's not about creating a system that is bias towards the in group. It's about creating a system in the best way you can, but you are a human with experiences in some areas and Blindspots in others.

A mother making a genuine attempt to understand and make decisions about how to handle her son's sexual hormones or violent outbursts will not come as close as a father. Any decisions she makes will be based on her experiences, which is limited. She might be even more caring and lenient than the father would be. But the difference is real.

Biden addressing only girls issues is not patriarchal or non-patriarchical. It depends if the decision makers and the thinkers behind it actually represent female interests or not.

It's such a common trope for feminists, but you can imagine a scenario where 20 old men are discussing new laws to solve male on female sexual harassment in the work place. Even if they are doing their best, it is impossible for them to have an approach that is unbias. Same for a room of 20 girls talking about how to solve male student on student violence. They simply cannot have the perspective of a boy and so they will have blindspots.

[–]sorebum4051 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, I still don't agree.I don't think men will have these blindspots, because of gynocentrism and feminism. Women voice their issues and perspectives all the time, and feminism allows them to do so across the globe.So, even if you're a man in a leadership position or a position of authority you're gonna hear about women's issues from a female perspective.

There are many examples of this throughout history and currently. For example, In the 1830's Caroline Norton lobbied to get custody laws passed that would give mother's the right to appeal for custody of their kids. She did this because of a bad experience she had trying to get custody of her kids from her husband.She had to convince men in parliament to create these bills and pass them. Roe v Wade was passed because the male judges ruled in favour of Jane Roe. The women's health movement which was led by women resulted in the creation of multiple national offices dedicated to women's health being created. The director of the NIH who is a man created the first office on women's health.

I think you belive that men have this blindspot, because you're seeing men in these overt positions of power and are assuming that they alone are making decisions, without influence from feminist organizations, female voters, etc. So it seems like their perspective would be biased, but I don't think that is actually the case. You also have to remember that these men have wives as well, who may be influencing their decisions.

[–]_EX1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sorebum4051 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you're saying that men and women get a proportional say in the leadership in the system, then that's fine. That wouldn't be a patriarchy then. I'm totally fine with that as an option

I'm arguing against your point about male leaders having blindspots which prevent them from being unbiased.I didn't propose a new definition.

I think we can assume male government dictatorships wouldn't count as this, so it's not like patriarchies don't exist.

I don't even think that male dictators have this blindspot either.We can even look at the taliban as an example and see that they are under scrutiny from the international community, and people in Afghanistan for the way they treat women.For example,they know that alot of women want to be able to pursue an education they just don't care.

So in the case of taliban, it is not a matter of them having a blindspot, it is about them not caring. The taliban doesn't really care about women's rights or human rights in general.They only care about adherence to Islam, and they have a very strict interpretation of Islam.

[–]_EX1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sorebum4051 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So going by this logic, would you also agree that the taliban has blindspots for men too, since they have done things that are against the male perspective too.They forbid men from wearing western clothes or having a western hairstyle. Which not only affects the men who used to wear that attire, but it also the male barbers who shaved their hair. They lost alot of business.The taliban have also changed the ciriculum in schools to focus more on teaching Islam, and have increased corporal punishment. Schoolboys don't like the new change. They banned social media like TikTok and PUBG which affects men and women.They don't allow freedom of speech. They stone gay men. They also have a law preventing women from being alone in a taxi, which means the men who are taxi drivers lost alot of business as well.

Also,many afghan men actually do support women's rights,and the vast majority of men and women say their suffering under the taliban.

[–]_EX1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm really not trying to disagree just to be annoying, but that's not what I'm saying. Maybe my explanation is unclear.

Hurting or helping a gender does not impact the status of patriarchy or matriarchy. Patriarchal societies could technically prioritize women and ignore all men, and it wouldn't change the type of system (it would be hard to find one like that though).

The patriarchy, in my mind, is made up two main points.

1) the leadership is mainly made of males. 2) because of point 1, the leadership has a limited understanding of the female perspective and the direction they move in will be based on male perspectives.

The effects from those two points would likely be that decision made from a male dominated perspective are better at addressing matters that affect men, and may neglect matters that affect women because they require females to address them. Men making choices about women on behalf of women is less effective.

Even if women are being benefited in some way, it might be because that is what men want, rather than what women want. So benefits aren't the point.

The main point is about agency, and how patriarchy can mean a lack of female agency.

The historical choice to force men to fight and bar women from fighting in wars may benefit women, but that was a choice made by men and with less agency given to women. Even if a slave was treated better than the master, the slave would still have no agency and that's the difference I'm trying to show.

[–]sorebum4051 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_EX1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sorebum4051 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_EX1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InvestigatorKey7553 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_EX -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you're asking about examples of how a leader can prioritize male interest vs female interest.

For the male side, there are a lot of extreme patriarchy examples you can think of that might not be ubiquitous but here are some ones that I think are common:

-The Father understands how young men might try to take advantage of his younger daughter so he is overly strict with how she can interact with men. I.e No revealing clothes, no dates where she is in the car with a boy, the father must meet the boy and grill him first. The treatment for the son and his gf will likely be less strict in this way.

the father could prioritize problem solving approaches that are more masculine (trying to manipulate the cause of the issue, rather than how the child feels about the issue). As he is the leader, the feminine approach of problem solving will be under prioritized.
father's are usually more forgiving for roughhousing, for daughters too, but especially boys. This is something that he feels is normal for kids and not a big issue. If the leader is ok with this, it will be more acceptable as a family unit
father's tend to prioritize careers, and so "family" can often suffer. Moving your family for work, working late nights. It's not bad but it's more of a male thing.
if the leader sets the house rules, you can see how a father would be keenly aware of rules that impact males but he might have gaps in issues that impact females. If you can't choose both, the male orientated one wins.

For the female side (it's harder because I'm not a girl but I'll try) :

-the matriarch would likely prioritize the emotional wellbeing of the kids in dealing with problems. Rather than manipulation of outside factors to solve an issue, mothers tend to look for ways that we can accept and process stressful issues.

communication styles for motherly figures are different from fathers. If a matriarch sets the tone of family discussion, this will be a feminine communication style that females are better suited for, and males are not as well equiped.
matriarchs tend to prioritize family unity above career. Lower paying jobs with more family time may teach the children that children the feminine approach and also might limit the amount of career advice/support they can provide.
imagine the relationship advice from a father vs a mother for both genders of the child. They will have different effects.

[–]PlanktonRoyal52 17 points18 points19 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElisaSKy 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ElisaSKy 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

........................ Have you actually had a family?

Look, humans have their blind spots. Getting ANYONE to acknowledge that an infant screaming so hard that he starts to coughing off his lungs before going into shock may have been the victim of injustice is nigh impossible, because compassion for men, and the very notion of men's pain sits FIRMLY in such a blind spot. Ask intactivists. They know.

I've literally tried to explain that trying to hold down someone while your buddy stabs him is attempted murder. I've literelly had to explain something as basic as "chasing down someone with a knife is pretty clear intent to kill with the means to do so already in hand", and apparently I "support the assault and murder of police officers" becasuse the female knife-wielding assailant and the female first responder failed to kill the guy and he managed to turn the cops' gun on her. That was a specific news story I'll need to find again, but there's plenty of stories where men are villified for self-defense against an armed assailant.

Let alone the fact that there's a publically funded (AKA paid for by taxes AKA paid for by me and you without either of our consent) lobby SPECIFICALLY for addressing the specific problems of women that has found such a LACK of real female specific problems they have to either outright FAKE STATISTICS to turn genderless problems (DV, rape) into gendered ones (Duluth model, gendered rape definitions), or name a random inconvenience (like arrogant know-it-all who think they know better than you) of life and artificially gender it (how do you call what arrogent women know-it-all who think they know better than you do? Womansplaining? How about we call it "being an unbearable know-it-all especially when you know jack" and not gender it?) to find female-specific problems. Why would they have to MANUFACTURE female-specific problems if there were any real female specific problems as you claim?

Yeah, you're assuming a blindspot I see not only no evidence for, plenty of contradictory evidence against, and a motherlode of evidence against the exact opposite blind spot. To quote Karen Straughan: "Back up your claims, or stop making them".

[–]Current_Finding_4066 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grand-Juggernaut6937 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_EX 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Independence_soft2 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger8593 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_EX 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]itswesfrank -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]_EX -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ggleblanc2 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElisaSKy 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"If you mean "men dominating women for men's benefit"" let's be real, anyone using the word patriarchy will use it to mean precisely that. If pressed (and some will take a lot of pressing to define that term), that's the definition they'll use, and even if not pressed, that's the only thing all their arguments are consistent with.

And let's be real, anyone who claims there's a patriarchy still existing somewhere? Find me a society where women raping men will expect a greater jail sentence than men raping women. Cite me some actual legal statutes please, because I can cite several places (including India: Rape (1) A person (A) commits an offence if- (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. For a supposedly "patriarchal" country, India specifically defines rape in a way that does not protect men from female rapists.). I'll wait. I'm not holding my breath tho.

[–]_EX 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tiktoksuckpooooop -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tiktoksuckpooooop 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tiktoksuckpooooop1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Questions about Patriarchy

Comments

Any country with male-only conscription doesn't fit that definition.

Title	Questions about Patriarchy
Author	_EX
Upvotes	7
Comments	50
Date	September 21, 2024 6:03 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1flwfa1/questions_about_patriarchy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/questions-about-patriarchy.1530842 https://theredarchive.com/post/1530842