ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.-THE- PATRIARCHY!!...and how it doesn't exist

19 20348
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
10,171 posts
2,975

So I am currently doing a paper for my Essay Writing class, in which we must take a stance on a social issue and argue for or against it. I have taken the issue of feminism (more specifically third-wave feminism [even more specifically the radical feminists that have hijacked the movement]), and am arguing against (the radical feminists).

I am going to argue against their desire to change the titles of female and women, showing that their etymology are actually relatively harmless...the expansion and over-complication of gender (of which we have a thread about this in WEPR)...and their false idea of there being a Patriarchy.

So I ask your thoughts on the matter, what do you think of the idea of the Patriarchy?

-----

My thoughts, which for now I will keep shortened due to my focus being on this essay...is as I mentioned, it is merely a false idea.

To start, I see the feminist movement itself as evidence of a lack of patriarchy. Patriarchy, by definition, is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination Source

As taken even further, these radical feminists view the Patriarchy as an oppressive institution against females, which herein we find an issue with their idea. How can there be a Patriarchy, which by definition (whether intentionally or unintentionally) oppresses females, if said Patriarchy is issuing rights towards females? If there truly was a Patriarchy, and one as powerful as these radical feminists state, then would their movement be all for naught?

Furthermore, if we were to accept that there is a Patriarchy, and our government is a Patriarchal one, then we must therefore accept that it is the females that are catalysts for this state and in fact cause it to be so.
"B-but pang, how can that be so??!"
Well let's look at the numbers!

In 2011, 46.2% of females voted in the 2010 congressional voting, while only 44.8% of males voted in that election.

Now further into the number hole we goooooo
Population of both genders (in 2011)
Females - 158.3 million
Males - 153.3 million.

This means that the voting population was..
Females - ~73million
Males - ~69million

That's right people, females, due to majority rule, control the voting game. That means, theoretically (if females wanted to), we could have an all female government*. Therefore, it is the females that are voting in this so called Patriarchy.

*"Ha! Got you here pang! There are hardly any females IN government, so how can we vote for females if there are none?"
pray tell, how does this equate a patriarchy, though? Females can just as easily go into politics, but evidently opt not to. Instead of pushing to hinder men in the political game, the movement should push to further female attendance in it.

  • 19 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,332 posts
3,715

theoretically (if females wanted to), we could have an all female government*.


not as long the males are allowed to vote.
if we would really make it a gender game. then all females vote females and all males vote males.
so the government would be roughly 50/50% male/female.

your point that woman often simply do not choose to be part of leadership functions is a very good and real one. i know some reasoning to underline this point. but i wont say here. it will probably be seen as sexist since i can't say it that well in english. but there has been done lots of research on this field. if you wanna talk, let me know on my page. =)
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,684 posts
3,430

Well, you've demonstrated that Patriarchy is undersupported on a national scale, but there are still pockets of local Patriarchy roaming here and there. The evidence of Feminism leading to progression is not evidence of the removal of Patriarchy or "Masculinism".

samy
offline
samy
5,025 posts
155

Well, you've demonstrated that Patriarchy is undersupported on a national scale, but there are still pockets of local Patriarchy roaming here and there.


In what way? He demonstrated that, purely in mathematical terms, women are no longer a "minority" in the United States. But taking the sociological definition (the only he need concern himself with in a sociological debate) of "Categories of persons who hold few positions of social power", he demonstrated, conversely, nothing at all.

Pang, there are three key things you seem to misunderstand about the idea of a Patriarchal society: 1) it does not imply that women have no rights, 2) it not monolithic, and 3) not all women are opposed to it.

1) It does not follow that post Civil War America was not racist simply because Black Americans had more rights than before. Similarly, that women have more rights today than they did a century ago does not imply that American is no longer sexist or patriarchal.

2) Not all of those in power support the patriarchy, this does not imply that the patriarchy does not exist. In a similar vein, there is no patriarchy headquarters or no patriarchy national committee. It is a movement of individuals, not a conspiracy.

3) The patriarchy is insidious, it seeks to convince all members of the society it presides over that it is the best structure. That it oppresses women is not enough to claim that women, and their voting patterns, do not support it.

Politically, we may be living through a transition to a somewhat more egalitarian society, at least where gender is concerned. But even if we are, we most certainly are not there yet. Women are woefully underrepresented in politics, we should see a 50/50 split â" we do not. Either women are less adept at running for political office or some outside force (the patriarchy) is conspiring to keep women out of politics. And outside of politics, particularly in business and religious institutions, the situation is even worse.

So, as men are the primary authority figures in the US (something you admit at the end of your post), and as women are a minority in this country, it would seem as though the Patriarchy â"by your provided â" most certainly exists.
samy
offline
samy
5,025 posts
155

And briefly, I have plenty of issues with Tumblr feminism (which is what I imagine you think of when you think of "radical feminism) â" primarily that it tends to ignore other societal inequalities â" but its issues do not weaken their overarching arguments. You just have to muddle through the crap.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
10,171 posts
2,975

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH.
Literally had so much **** typed out, but then some random ad sent me away...gotta retype it. A little peeved.

Great..had great arguments too and now I've lost most of them. So yeah..bear with me, given that this retype probably won't be anywhere near as thorough and clear as the one I had.

But taking the sociological definition (the only he need concern himself with in a sociological debate) of "Categories of persons who hold few positions of social power", he demonstrated, conversely, nothing at all.


What I demonstrated was that females hold the majority, and therefore have the ability to place more women into such positions of power. Instead of vying for an egalitarian argument, the feminists should push for more women being into politics.

1) It does not follow that post Civil War America was not racist simply because Black Americans had more rights than before. Similarly, that women have more rights today than they did a century ago does not imply that American is no longer sexist or patriarchal.


Of course not, however they are not the only ones that have less rights or on lower rungs. Men have cases in which they have the lesser status, and the argument has gone from a "female rights" issue to a complete "equal rights" one.

That being said, there is a major difference between post Civil War era and post "Female rights 'war(?)'" that goes with what I just mentioned. in the post Civil War era, we had a continuing progression for rights for one group (black people). In our era, however, we have the fighting for equal rights, which entails a fight for both sides...although the female one is one that receives more backing, both because of the girth of its momentum from the Female Rights movements as well as the fact that although men do have lower status and whatnot in certain instances, overall females are in more need of furthered rights.

2) Not all of those in power support the patriarchy, this does not imply that the patriarchy does not exist. In a similar vein, there is no patriarchy headquarters or no patriarchy national committee. It is a movement of individuals, not a conspiracy


to be honest, this is so obvious that it really doesn't need mentioning.

Although..after hearing some of what radical feminists view, I wouldn't be surprised if they thought this was so.

Also..a "movement of individuals is a bit of a misnomer, no? It gives an implication that it is a conscious movement.

3) The patriarchy is insidious, it seeks to convince all members of the society it presides over that it is the best structure. That it oppresses women is not enough to claim that women, and their voting patterns, do not support it.


if I may...what evidence is there to support their being a "patriarchal society"..or us being in one? I mean..given that female subordination is is not so..due to them,, essentially, being the ones that decide who gets voted in. The idea of the fact that more men is in power should be evidence of females needing more of a push to be in politics, rather than us being patriarchal, given that (theoretically) we could have an all female government if the female population wanted it to be so.

Politically, we may be living through a transition to a somewhat more egalitarian society


oh might and merciful Steve please no

Women are woefully underrepresented in politics, we should see a 50/50 split �" we do not


And the point of my argument with the statistics is to show that women could easily be represented in politics, given that they hold the majority in the voting process.
I would say, that this shows more of a need for a "call to arms" (per se) for women in politics rather than argue for some egalitarian stance.

Either women are less adept at running for political office or some outside force (the patriarchy) is conspiring to keep women out of politics. And outside of politics, particularly in business and religious institutions, the situation is even worse.


So either...sexism is actually right when it comes to females and politics...or the patriarchy is now an active force? Why not just the simple fact that "women aren't currently active in politics"?

So, as men are the primary authority figures in the US (something you admit at the end of your post)


*as voted for by females

and as women are a minority in this country,


Hardly..

nd briefly, I have plenty of issues with Tumblr feminism (which is what I imagine you think of when you think of "radical feminism) �" primarily that it tends to ignore other societal inequalities �" but its issues do not weaken their overarching arguments. You just have to muddle through the crap.


i guess herein I should clear some issues. Now, I am not denying the idea that a Patriarchy ever existed, or that our society leans towards a Patriarchal one..but just saying that it is not as much of a movement as many of the radical feminists like to believe.

Again..most of my qualms in terms of these arguments come from the radicals, as came my beef with this idea. I do not mean to try and dispel feminism..but to try and dispel the radical side.

(again..sorry about this all. Had it all typed out much better..then **** happened.)
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,477 posts
2,320

I mean..given that female subordination is is not so..due to them,, essentially, being the ones that decide who gets voted in. The idea of the fact that more men is in power should be evidence of females needing more of a push to be in politics, rather than us being patriarchal, given that (theoretically) we could have an all female government if the female population wanted it to be so.

There's a bit of "coerced agreement" with a male-driven system that discourages female elevation, such as the many misogynistic passages in certain holy books. Ex: For purely religious reasons, my mom believes that "husband > wife" is the way it was meant to be and the way it should be.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,477 posts
2,320

Oh, I forgot to mention that she doesn't vote.

Squidbears
offline
Squidbears
651 posts
355

Seeing as how feminine traits are viewed as weak and inferior compared to masculine traits, its hardly surprising that women are underrepresented in not only political office, but ALL positions of power. Women aren't "supposed" to be competitive, aggressive, or forward with their thoughts. Those are actions reserved for men.
Not to mention that whenever a woman is attempting to elevate herself in society, her looks are commented on just as much (if not more) than what she brings to the table. Look at Sarah Palin's vice principle run for evidence. Sooooo many comments were made about her physical appearance. Similarly, Hillary Clinton was widely criticized for being unlikeable due to her acting outside of the stereotypical nurturing character we as a society expect of women.

What I demonstrated was that females hold the majority, and therefore have the ability to place more women into such positions of power. Instead of vying for an egalitarian argument, the feminists should push for more women being into politics.

You are failing to realize that most people don't recognize the pressures of a patriarchal society. Also, do you honestly think that feminists AREN'T pushing for more female representation in politics?

Men have cases in which they have the lesser status

Such as obtaining custody of children, absolutely. Also a direct result of a patriarchal society. The notion that women=nurturer is fair for nobody.

what evidence is there to support their being a "patriarchal society"

Really? See:
**** Shaming
Victim Blaming
Intersectionality
The definition of patriarchy

oh might and merciful Steve please no

Are you honestly implying that egalitarianism is a negative thing?

And the point of my argument with the statistics is to show that women could easily be represented in politics

Except things are kind of complicated by the whole.. women are subordinate idea that's pervasive throughout society.

*as voted for by females

who are still under the influence of a patriarchal society.

it is not as much of a movement as many of the radical feminists like to believe.

It isn't a movement.. It's a social construct that is perpetuated by society. Just like gender roles
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
10,171 posts
2,975

You are failing to realize that most people don't recognize the pressures of a patriarchal society. Also, do you honestly think that feminists AREN'T pushing for more female representation in politics?


My annoyance is starting to wear down..so I should explain myself =/

I'm not arguing against a society with Patriarchal tendencies or it being a social construct..I'm more arguing against the more radical feminists viewpoint of this idea, in which it goes from the plausible idea that I actually agree with, to a movement that seems to take on a conscious body.

A lot of what I'm saying here is more just trying to make a jab at the radical feminists..and in doing so I'm not really holding on to my natural train of thought.

The notion that women=nurturer is fair for nobody.


from cases I've seen...it seems to be more along the lines of "males=unable as nurturers"

Are you honestly implying that egalitarianism is a negative thing?


Ummm...yes.

It isn't a movement.. It's a social construct that is perpetuated by society. Just like gender roles


This I agree with...it is just whenever the idea of it is given more power than it really holds...like it is a movement that is actively working to oppress women (or as Moe describes it in my comment section).

-----

I apologize for any confusion I may be creating. I do not mean to come off as anti-feminist..as I am one myself (in so far as I am for MRA. AKA more just equal rights activist) and hate whenever this idea of Patriarchy is given more power than it should hold.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,742 posts
3,195

.I'm more arguing against the more radical feminists viewpoint of this idea, in which it goes from the plausible idea that I actually agree with, to a movement that seems to take on a conscious body.


Welcome to the modern feminist movement, which is closer to a supremacist conspiracy theory than anything else. Most everyone interested in equal rights jumped that boat looooooooong ago, except for the people who are under the delusion that the platform hasn't been hijacked by radicals.

Ummm...yes.


How so?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,236 posts
1,245

The problem with feminism is that it stereotypes men, victimizes women who aren't really victims, and demonizes men who aren't really doing anything wrong.

For example, there was the one feminist who talked about how video games are patriarchal, and how they portray women in a negative light. She talked about how men always want to save women, because being saved somehow makes you an "object" rather than a "person". This kind of **** needs to die.

Someone on here posted a study in which a feminist conducted a study trying to prove that both men and women view women as objects and men as people. I won't go into more detail unless that redicilous study is brought up again though.

"Seeing as how feminine traits are viewed as weak and inferior compared to masculine traits, its hardly surprising that women are underrepresented in not only political office, but ALL positions of power. Women aren't "supposed" to be competitive, aggressive, or forward with their thoughts. Those are actions reserved for men."

There are people who think this way, but society as a whole does not operate in such a manner - at least not in places such as America and Europe. Most of the higher paid positions of the company I work for are filled by women. I've worked for more female managers than I have male managers. Maybe it's through coincidence I've almost always worked for women, but there doesn't seem to be a shortage of women in management positions from what I can see.

Not to mention that whenever a woman is attempting to elevate herself in society, her looks are commented on just as much (if not more) than what she brings to the table. Look at Sarah Palin's vice principle run for evidence. Sooooo many comments were made about her physical appearance. Similarly, Hillary Clinton was widely criticized for being unlikeable due to her acting outside of the stereotypical nurturing character we as a society expect of women.


Men are constantly bringing new things to the table, but hardly anyone ever recognizes their good looks. Their physique is constantly ignored and they're nothing more than tools. Women are both recognized for what they bring to the table AND their looks! They aren't only valued for what they do, but for who they are! HIllary Clinton shares similar views to many men, yet people want to vote for her because she's a woman. They assume she's worked harder than the men around her because she's a woman.

It's easy to shine a new light on stage.

There are a lot of problems women have to put up with, and people underestimating their abilities is one of them. But both men and women suffer from stereotypes - it isn't just women. The problem with feminism is that it fails to recognize this. The feminist movement attacks men as if men do not suffer from sexism or other sexual biases.

There are many issues in America in which both genders are treated unfairly - and both issues should be addressed. Both the feminist movement and the Men's Rights Movement are filled with sexist pigs who only focus on problems their own genders have while blaming the other gender instead of simply blaming the sexist groups themselves.

We all hear the rape statistics in which approximately 1 in 4 to 1 in 11 women are raped and/or sexually abused. These numbers are very important, but they don't portray how many men are rapists, attempted rapists, or sexual offenders. However, many people wrongfully assume a large majority of men rape, attempt rape, or sexually abuse women due to these figured. They don't consider the idea that it's a small number of men committing the large number of these cases.

I apologize for any confusion I may be creating. I do not mean to come off as anti-feminist..as I am one myself (in so far as I am for MRA. AKA more just equal rights activist) and hate whenever this idea of Patriarchy is given more power than it should hold.


Ever since I was blocked and slandered by that sexist piece of ****, PineGrove, on YouTube, I've been anti-MRA.

There are many intelligent, unbiased, people who belong to both the feminist and MRA movements. However, both these movements are infested with sexist ******** who pretty much give the entire movement a bad name. It's hard to call one's self a feminist or MRA because you're going to automatically be associated with the radicals. And, in a way, it's all the more reason to abandon such titles. They've been tainted.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
10,171 posts
2,975

Really? See:
**** Shaming
Victim Blaming
Intersectionality
The definition of patriarchy


This was actually completely my fault...and I apologize. How I meant to word my question was "Is there any evidence for 'The Patriarchy' actually existing?"

I have to apologize again for my action taken amongst this thread..I've been dealing with a lot of debates involving the radical feminists...and in short it has really tampered with my thinking towards this patriarchal idea.
I do understand we live in a society that is patriarchal to some means..however it is the phrase "The Patriarchy" that I have major qualms with. It's a complete misnomer..as it implies a conscious and active body working about the system.

except for the people who are under the delusion that the platform hasn't been hijacked by radicals.


Yeah I was in a debate, more or less, with some of these people a couple of days ago...I got spammed with links to how "MRA is bull**** and wrong".

How so?


I'm going to create a thread on the topic, actually. To be short, when it comes to this idea I'm more along the lines of Libertarian.

The problem with feminism is that it stereotypes men, victimizes women who aren't really victims, and demonizes men who aren't really doing anything wrong.


Preach on, brother.
With the victimizes women who aren't really victims..I'll have to find the actual statistics on it..but most people say that 1 in 4 women are "sexually assaulted", when the actual figure is about 1 in ~80.

And speaking of demonizing men...
In the debate I mentioned previously...one of the people I was debating actually tried to discredit my entire argument on the grounds of my "Male Privilege", as if it a) Even mattered in the debate, and b) was something I should be ashamed of and was horrible for having.

The feminist movement attacks men as if men do not suffer from sexism or other sexual biases.


A radical feminist that I'm (sadly) friends with on The Facebook actually shared an article that satirized males that try to argue that men do suffer from sexism as well. I tried to speak up that it was a horribly misinformed article..and subsequently got attacked because of the "Male privileges" I mentioned earlier that I hold.

We all hear the rape statistics in which approximately 1 in 4 to 1 in 11 women are raped and/or sexually abused


Given that I already mentioned this..I'll give a brief explanation for why the stats have been staggered so much.
Essentially, it is because of all the false accusations that are made and charges that are made that are subsequently dropped...despite these facts being so the cases are still counted towards the statistics.

There are many intelligent, unbiased, people who belong to both the feminist and MRA movements. However, both these movements are infested with sexist ******** who pretty much give the entire movement a bad name. It's hard to call one's self a feminist or MRA because you're going to automatically be associated with the radicals. And, in a way, it's all the more reason to abandon such titles. They've been tainted.


That last line is something I actually say quite often. Each side has been obscured to focus on one sex more than the other, rather than focus on an equal statues.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
10,171 posts
2,975

So in a hilariously ironic twist of fate...the radical feminist girl I was in a debate with...just shared a link on The Facebook that is subjecting men...sexy pics of em =O

danielo
offline
danielo
1,782 posts
600

Ill give you the smallest case to think about it:
In the high school i studied we have a student council.
Everytime there was a voting to the council president, if a male was on the list, he won. Every single time. And when it was all girls, the one that looked the best would have.

When a women try to go to the top she is suddenly a witch. A female dog. She is cold. And if she is not, she most be ****y. This is how most peoples think. Like it or not.
And these feminists tend to go to the opposite. Its like with Iran. When the revolution threw away the Shae, they did everything that he didnt wanted. He was pro America and Israel? They will hate them. He opend universities? They will make them islamists.

Its easier this way, as they can see who is "good" and who is "bad" with more ease. This way they can make themselves sure they are the correct side.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,236 posts
1,245

Here's something I posted on Facebook a while back. These are actual arguments I've heard from both sides. Admittedly, the arguments from the MRA mostly come from the comments section of PineGrove's videos. (For those of you who don't know, PIneGrove is a sexist moron on YouTube who censors his channel due to his own lack of debating skills).

It's amazing how both sides hate each other so much, yet they come to oddly similar conclusions.

I understand that there are varying opinions within both the feminist movement and within the Men's Rights Movement. Therefore, I will be generalizing popular opinions of "radicals" from both ends.

On parenting:
Feminists - "Everyone stereotypes against women, claiming they should be the ones stuck at home taking care of the child. There is no reason why a father can't stay at home while the woman works."

MRM - "Everyone stereotypes against men, claiming women are better at raising children than men. There's nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home dad."

On porn:
Feminists - "Porn is degrading! It depicts women as nothing more than sex objects! Women should refrain from such acts and show the world that they aren't objects!"

MRM - "Men shouldn't watch porn! Women take advantage of men and their wallets by seducing them with their bodies! Men should resist temptation and show the world that they aren't tools!"

On manners:
Feminists - "Men always feel obliged to treat women special. They always offer to pay for the meal, or hold the door open for women. Women aren't helpless, they shouldn't be treated as such.

MRM - "Women always feel entitled to special treatment. They always expect men to pay for the meal, or to hold the door open for them. Men aren't slaves, they shouldn't serve women.

On The Opposing Group:
Feminists - "The Men's Right Movement is full of a bunch of sexist pigs who want to take away the rights of women!

MRM - "The Feminist Movement is full of a bunch of sexist dogs who want to take away the rights of men!"

You need to defend women's rights when laws discriminate against women.
You need to defend men's rights when laws discriminate against men.

You need to accept that some women don't want to be treated special.
You need to accept that some men don't want to treat women special.

You need to accept that some women are okay with having their meal payed for.
You need to accept that some men are perfectly fine paying the bill.

You need to accept that some men and women aren't guilty of watching porn or starring in porno.

You need to accept that some women do want to work outside, in the sun, breaking a sweat, while others want to avoid manual labor.
You need to accept that some men do want to stay at home with their kid as their wives pay the bills, while others don't mind the physical exhaustion.

Radical feminism and the MRM are bull****. And if you're a "casual" activist belonging to either one of these groups, then you may as well call yourself a humanitarian and fight tooth and nail for the rights of both men and women when the occasion arises!

Note: I understand that sexual oppression can be so great in some areas that a movement, dedicated to focusing on only the rights of a single gender (namely women), are necessary. When the level of oppression is completely one sided, worrying about the rights of a single gender becomes a full-time job. In America and Europe, feminism and masculinism is used to cherry pick situations in which the gender they represent are "oppressed".
Showing 1-15 of 19