This is an odd thought but in modern society when we discuss things like "the patriarchy" it's fairly common for people to argue that it doesn't exist--i.e. you can't point to any one place where "the patriarchs" are gathered, consolidating power for their nefarious ends.
But it seems pretty obvious (especially after reading this piece) that "the patriarchy" isn't so much an organization as it is a mode of being--one that is in effect in traditional societies, that was strongly in effect in America about a hundred and fifty years ago, and whose vestiges still remain in modern attitudes.
It depends on how you define 'patriarchy'. The standard definition is basically a society where women (and by extension children's) safety, comfort and access to resources is prioritised, even at the expense of their personal freedom. It is men's patriarchal duty to ensure women and children are protected and provided for in this way ("women and children first"), even at the expense of their own personal comfort, safety, access to resources or even their lives.
In a patriarchy men assume responsibility for looking after themselves AND women (and children), which places women in their care. Caring for people is a kind of ownership (wardship). To care for a baby, or a tiny bird, or a precious vase one must treat it like your most valued possession.
As children grow up our care morphs from 24/7 possession (literally carrying them around) to gradually giving them more and more personal freedom and autonomy until they eventually become full adults. Teenagers often fluctuate between wanting autonomy (go out all weekend partying) but also wanting the protections and resources that their parents provide (rent free room, free meals, laundry and taxi service).
Under 'patriarchy' there is a similar dynamic at play. Women want men's protections and resources when it suits... but women also want freedom and autonomy when it suits (and when it feels safe enough to enjoy them).
I would argue that ALL societies are patriarchal in nature, because that is how biology is set up (not just in humans but across the animal kingdom). The societies with the most inflexible and authoritarian patriarchies tend to be those where life is the most brutal due to wars, political unrest, scarce resources etc. The societies with (seemingly) more flexible patriarchies tend to be those with high living standards, modern technology and abundant resources and employment opportunities (ie western cultures).
What remains a constant though, is the provision of resources and protection to women. In the west we have licensed taxis, street lighting, CCTV, good public transport, no civil wars and an affluent lifestyle. This allows women to go out clubbing in miniskirts, crop tops and high heels and get drunk and chat up random strangers and if she stays out in the open and she will probably be perfectly safe. If not she will call for the nearest nightclub bouncer, or the police or call for a cab.
In war torn countries with scarce resources women must dress and behave differently to achieve the same level of safety and comfort. Of course once a culture is in place, it tends to be passed down from one generation to the next even if the country is not presently in a war or lacking resources.
No matter how overtly patriarchal a culture the provision of resources and protection to women is always the priority. And men must sacrifice themselves (to whatever degree) to achieve this. In countries with an unstable or collapsing government women are more likely to marry men and become 'their wards'. And in countries with a massive overblown government (like in the west) women are more likely to marry the state which takes money from men and gives it to women. This is more like the traditional harem system, which we've seen throughout history. In the west when you do the calculations only men actually pay taxes. Women are net recipients of tax spending.
Every culture is some variation on the same theme.... women need to be kept safe and men are expendable. If a meteor sent us all back to the middle ages tomorrow, the west would return to a more traditional (overt) patriarchy with women marrying men who were 100% responsible for providing resources and protection to her, the children and her extended family. And it would be women who would demand and enforce these new more traditional gender roles and instil them into her own children!
The main lies of feminism are that a) patriarchy is the oppression of women b) patriarchy is invented by men and imposed on women against their will c) men and women are natural enemies (rather than natural complimentary partners) d) that women have not played AT LEAST a 50% role in defining the gender roles and cultural norms in every culture throughout history.
Emma Watson fronting the UN's 'he for she' campaign is a classic example of a western woman demanding more patriarchy (in her case the big government harem model) under the banner of feminism.
Modern technology has done a lot to DISSOLVE strict gender roles by allowing both sexes to have a lot more autonomy while also increasing living standards and therefore reducing the pressures which require us to maintain such strict gender roles (division of labour). For some women this softening of traditional gender roles is great, but for others it is terrifying! Those women are called 'feminists'.
While feminists CLAIM to oppose patriarchy what they are actually doing is demanding resources and special treatment from men (he for she). Feminists are actually demanding MORE patriarchy, and they do this by shaming men for alleged 'patriarchal oppression' and then demanding resources and special treatment as a form of penance/ reparations. Most men are a bit slow and haven't figured this out yet (even after a century). Western men are like doting fathers, and feminists are like the spoilt brat of a daughter accusing daddy of not loving her, because he refuses to buy her a horse (hint, hint).
What a lovely idea, though ahistorical. A system that permitted marital rape in Britain until the 1990s wasn’t prioritising women’s safety or comfort. “Women and children first” wasn’t a law or even a policy - it was a brief Victorian trend among the upper classes (ask poor Victorian Londoners what women’s lives were like - they mostly resorted to prostitution to survive), immortalised in film and popular culture but not actually manifesting in reality.
History is a really valuable study, much better than culture warring online.
"A system that permitted marital rape in Britain until the 1990s wasn’t prioritising women’s safety or comfort."
Rape of women has never been legal or socially condoned. This is just another feminist fantasy of male dominance (like the 'rule of thumb'). The entire body of literature and art throughout all of history defines men who rape women, control women, or harm women in any way as villains.
In fact if you want to signal a male villain all you have to do is show him disrespecting a woman in some way. It's a universal trope which plugs into our most primitive hard wiring.
It's also why feminism has been so phenomenally successful. Feminists are women who hold themselves hostage - on men's behalf - claiming men are oppressing them. This naturally defines all men as villains, and sets up a dominance hierarchy of men bending over backwards to redeem themselves by pandering to the demands of feminists ('he for she') to prove they are better than other men.
Men have always competed to win women's social approval (in order to have a shot at reproduction). We see this across many species. Feminism hijacks this trait.
The feminist claim that men could legally rape their wives is all part of feminism's Male Power Fantasy. Claiming to be the victim of men's cruelty is how feminist women assert dominance (victim points). It is also how feminist men assert dominance over other men (white knighting and throwing all other men under the bus as misogynists).
If you think traditional gender roles and social conventions were NOT set up to prioritise women's safety, comfort and access to resources you need to present an ALTERNATIVE set of gender roles and conventions that a) would have been more beneficial to women b) would have been practically viable at the time.
In any age if you simply flip the gender roles (male house husbands, female coal miners or construction workers) it becomes apparent just how beneficial traditional roles have always been for women.
Lastly, the idea that gender roles were imposed onto women by men against their will and their best interests defines men as psychopaths, and women as objects. This is how feminists and feminist sympathisers define the sexes and it is dehumanising to both sexes.
The reality is women have always had a brain, free will, agency and the power to define their own identity and own gender roles - and men's too. Feminism 'patriarchy theory' asserts women had none of these qualities, and were less than human - essentially livestock managed by all powerful men.
This is insulting and beyond regressive. But it is also an effective way to control men through shaming.
Anyway, I challenge you to name any period in history where it would have been beneficial for a woman to trade places with a man of equivalent social status. You won't be able to, which already destroys the absurd notion that traditional gender roles ever oppressed women.
We ALL looked it up back in the early days of youtube feminism. As I explained it is just another example of feminists twisting realty to fit their Male Power Fantasy.
Marriage was an agreement (a contract) in which both parties consented to sex. The purpose of marriage was/ is to create a legally binding union between men and women for the purpose of procreation. The stability of marriage gives women the assurance that her chosen partner is legally bound to support her, and cannot just get her preggers and then run off into the night.
Feminists claim that because marriage gives a man legal access to intercourse with his wife that that is the same as rape. It is a completely retarded argument. Withholding sex was a violation of the marriage contract, but that does not mean men had the right to rape their wives!
If you listen to feminists you will go insane because they are insane. Feminists claim marriage is an institution invented by men to oppress and enslave women.... but in the next breath they also claim single women/ single mothers need special treatment and free stuff because they at a disadvantage compared to married women with a husband.
Feminism is an addiction to playing the powerless, helpless victim and using that identity to manipulate men. All of their claims have been debunked a thousands times.
You clearly haven’t, given that the legislation in question changed before the invention of You Tube (and clearly before your time). Which is why I always recommend that young people study history. Look at all the time you’ve spent spinning your personal version of the truth, when a little respect for history would keep your from spiralling down into self-dug fantasy rabbit holes.
Yes, as mentioned in this article, each mother endures years as a daughter-in-law, so when she becomes a mother-in-law is like retirement, handing over all duties to her daughter-in-law.
“Men may be shamed for conjugal love”. Another Zarmaganda story. Men will go to great lengths not to say the name of their father-in-law (a shame relation, because of what they are doing with FIL’s daughter). Village chief one day near Ouallam wanted to summon someone (who happened to have the same name as the chief’s FIL). Locals snickering about this as the chief was saying “hey, call that guy over here, you know who I mean” without using the guy’s name. This can be a problem when 60% of the men are named Mohamed or Boubacar.
This is an odd thought but in modern society when we discuss things like "the patriarchy" it's fairly common for people to argue that it doesn't exist--i.e. you can't point to any one place where "the patriarchs" are gathered, consolidating power for their nefarious ends.
But it seems pretty obvious (especially after reading this piece) that "the patriarchy" isn't so much an organization as it is a mode of being--one that is in effect in traditional societies, that was strongly in effect in America about a hundred and fifty years ago, and whose vestiges still remain in modern attitudes.
It depends on how you define 'patriarchy'. The standard definition is basically a society where women (and by extension children's) safety, comfort and access to resources is prioritised, even at the expense of their personal freedom. It is men's patriarchal duty to ensure women and children are protected and provided for in this way ("women and children first"), even at the expense of their own personal comfort, safety, access to resources or even their lives.
In a patriarchy men assume responsibility for looking after themselves AND women (and children), which places women in their care. Caring for people is a kind of ownership (wardship). To care for a baby, or a tiny bird, or a precious vase one must treat it like your most valued possession.
As children grow up our care morphs from 24/7 possession (literally carrying them around) to gradually giving them more and more personal freedom and autonomy until they eventually become full adults. Teenagers often fluctuate between wanting autonomy (go out all weekend partying) but also wanting the protections and resources that their parents provide (rent free room, free meals, laundry and taxi service).
Under 'patriarchy' there is a similar dynamic at play. Women want men's protections and resources when it suits... but women also want freedom and autonomy when it suits (and when it feels safe enough to enjoy them).
I would argue that ALL societies are patriarchal in nature, because that is how biology is set up (not just in humans but across the animal kingdom). The societies with the most inflexible and authoritarian patriarchies tend to be those where life is the most brutal due to wars, political unrest, scarce resources etc. The societies with (seemingly) more flexible patriarchies tend to be those with high living standards, modern technology and abundant resources and employment opportunities (ie western cultures).
What remains a constant though, is the provision of resources and protection to women. In the west we have licensed taxis, street lighting, CCTV, good public transport, no civil wars and an affluent lifestyle. This allows women to go out clubbing in miniskirts, crop tops and high heels and get drunk and chat up random strangers and if she stays out in the open and she will probably be perfectly safe. If not she will call for the nearest nightclub bouncer, or the police or call for a cab.
In war torn countries with scarce resources women must dress and behave differently to achieve the same level of safety and comfort. Of course once a culture is in place, it tends to be passed down from one generation to the next even if the country is not presently in a war or lacking resources.
No matter how overtly patriarchal a culture the provision of resources and protection to women is always the priority. And men must sacrifice themselves (to whatever degree) to achieve this. In countries with an unstable or collapsing government women are more likely to marry men and become 'their wards'. And in countries with a massive overblown government (like in the west) women are more likely to marry the state which takes money from men and gives it to women. This is more like the traditional harem system, which we've seen throughout history. In the west when you do the calculations only men actually pay taxes. Women are net recipients of tax spending.
Every culture is some variation on the same theme.... women need to be kept safe and men are expendable. If a meteor sent us all back to the middle ages tomorrow, the west would return to a more traditional (overt) patriarchy with women marrying men who were 100% responsible for providing resources and protection to her, the children and her extended family. And it would be women who would demand and enforce these new more traditional gender roles and instil them into her own children!
The main lies of feminism are that a) patriarchy is the oppression of women b) patriarchy is invented by men and imposed on women against their will c) men and women are natural enemies (rather than natural complimentary partners) d) that women have not played AT LEAST a 50% role in defining the gender roles and cultural norms in every culture throughout history.
Emma Watson fronting the UN's 'he for she' campaign is a classic example of a western woman demanding more patriarchy (in her case the big government harem model) under the banner of feminism.
Modern technology has done a lot to DISSOLVE strict gender roles by allowing both sexes to have a lot more autonomy while also increasing living standards and therefore reducing the pressures which require us to maintain such strict gender roles (division of labour). For some women this softening of traditional gender roles is great, but for others it is terrifying! Those women are called 'feminists'.
While feminists CLAIM to oppose patriarchy what they are actually doing is demanding resources and special treatment from men (he for she). Feminists are actually demanding MORE patriarchy, and they do this by shaming men for alleged 'patriarchal oppression' and then demanding resources and special treatment as a form of penance/ reparations. Most men are a bit slow and haven't figured this out yet (even after a century). Western men are like doting fathers, and feminists are like the spoilt brat of a daughter accusing daddy of not loving her, because he refuses to buy her a horse (hint, hint).
What a lovely idea, though ahistorical. A system that permitted marital rape in Britain until the 1990s wasn’t prioritising women’s safety or comfort. “Women and children first” wasn’t a law or even a policy - it was a brief Victorian trend among the upper classes (ask poor Victorian Londoners what women’s lives were like - they mostly resorted to prostitution to survive), immortalised in film and popular culture but not actually manifesting in reality.
History is a really valuable study, much better than culture warring online.
"A system that permitted marital rape in Britain until the 1990s wasn’t prioritising women’s safety or comfort."
Rape of women has never been legal or socially condoned. This is just another feminist fantasy of male dominance (like the 'rule of thumb'). The entire body of literature and art throughout all of history defines men who rape women, control women, or harm women in any way as villains.
In fact if you want to signal a male villain all you have to do is show him disrespecting a woman in some way. It's a universal trope which plugs into our most primitive hard wiring.
It's also why feminism has been so phenomenally successful. Feminists are women who hold themselves hostage - on men's behalf - claiming men are oppressing them. This naturally defines all men as villains, and sets up a dominance hierarchy of men bending over backwards to redeem themselves by pandering to the demands of feminists ('he for she') to prove they are better than other men.
Men have always competed to win women's social approval (in order to have a shot at reproduction). We see this across many species. Feminism hijacks this trait.
The feminist claim that men could legally rape their wives is all part of feminism's Male Power Fantasy. Claiming to be the victim of men's cruelty is how feminist women assert dominance (victim points). It is also how feminist men assert dominance over other men (white knighting and throwing all other men under the bus as misogynists).
If you think traditional gender roles and social conventions were NOT set up to prioritise women's safety, comfort and access to resources you need to present an ALTERNATIVE set of gender roles and conventions that a) would have been more beneficial to women b) would have been practically viable at the time.
In any age if you simply flip the gender roles (male house husbands, female coal miners or construction workers) it becomes apparent just how beneficial traditional roles have always been for women.
Lastly, the idea that gender roles were imposed onto women by men against their will and their best interests defines men as psychopaths, and women as objects. This is how feminists and feminist sympathisers define the sexes and it is dehumanising to both sexes.
The reality is women have always had a brain, free will, agency and the power to define their own identity and own gender roles - and men's too. Feminism 'patriarchy theory' asserts women had none of these qualities, and were less than human - essentially livestock managed by all powerful men.
This is insulting and beyond regressive. But it is also an effective way to control men through shaming.
Anyway, I challenge you to name any period in history where it would have been beneficial for a woman to trade places with a man of equivalent social status. You won't be able to, which already destroys the absurd notion that traditional gender roles ever oppressed women.
That was a LOT of writing for someone who can’t even be bothered to look up that relevant legislation!
We ALL looked it up back in the early days of youtube feminism. As I explained it is just another example of feminists twisting realty to fit their Male Power Fantasy.
Marriage was an agreement (a contract) in which both parties consented to sex. The purpose of marriage was/ is to create a legally binding union between men and women for the purpose of procreation. The stability of marriage gives women the assurance that her chosen partner is legally bound to support her, and cannot just get her preggers and then run off into the night.
Feminists claim that because marriage gives a man legal access to intercourse with his wife that that is the same as rape. It is a completely retarded argument. Withholding sex was a violation of the marriage contract, but that does not mean men had the right to rape their wives!
If you listen to feminists you will go insane because they are insane. Feminists claim marriage is an institution invented by men to oppress and enslave women.... but in the next breath they also claim single women/ single mothers need special treatment and free stuff because they at a disadvantage compared to married women with a husband.
Feminism is an addiction to playing the powerless, helpless victim and using that identity to manipulate men. All of their claims have been debunked a thousands times.
You clearly haven’t, given that the legislation in question changed before the invention of You Tube (and clearly before your time). Which is why I always recommend that young people study history. Look at all the time you’ve spent spinning your personal version of the truth, when a little respect for history would keep your from spiralling down into self-dug fantasy rabbit holes.
Why is the first duty to the MIL? Is the patriarchy upheld by mothers?
Yes, as mentioned in this article, each mother endures years as a daughter-in-law, so when she becomes a mother-in-law is like retirement, handing over all duties to her daughter-in-law.
“Men may be shamed for conjugal love”. Another Zarmaganda story. Men will go to great lengths not to say the name of their father-in-law (a shame relation, because of what they are doing with FIL’s daughter). Village chief one day near Ouallam wanted to summon someone (who happened to have the same name as the chief’s FIL). Locals snickering about this as the chief was saying “hey, call that guy over here, you know who I mean” without using the guy’s name. This can be a problem when 60% of the men are named Mohamed or Boubacar.
"Real Housewives of Tashkent!"
Good - some of the toxicity of MIL could use a break.
Otherwise, limiting women & keeping them in line is good.
Three really interesting posts to read over Christmas. Thanks.