Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

-THE- PATRIARCHY!!...and how it doesn't exist

Posted Nov 14, '13 at 12:03pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,761 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 14, '13 at 6:47pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

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. =)
 

Posted Nov 14, '13 at 6:51pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,286 posts

Moderator

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".

 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 12:07am

samy

samy

5,043 posts

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.
 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 12:14am

samy

samy

5,043 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 1:46am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,761 posts

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 &quotatriarchal 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.)
 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 4:11am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

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.
 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 4:23am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

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

 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 5:20pm

Squidbears

Squidbears

653 posts

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 &quotatriarchal 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
 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 5:47pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,761 posts

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.
 
Reply to -THE- PATRIARCHY!!...and how it doesn't exist

You must be logged in to post a reply!