First and foremost, this thread does mention feminism (gasp!). So here?s your chance to simply back out and not have to deal with it. Seriously, if you really don?t want to deal with it, just hit back, and forgo posting a reply here just to decry the fact another thread that mentions feminism has reared its ugly head at you.
Second, if a mod feels this would be better in Religion/Politics, I?m fine with that, move at your discretion. I just posted it here because it?s the argument I?m discussing, not the movement itself.
So here?s my deconstruction?
? and my reply to those who claim this is a direct reflection/example of ?The Patriarchy? in practice?
?got to run, I?m heeding the advice that I do something more constructive with my time then get into arguments with strangers online. Ta ta for now.
Second, if a mod feels this would be better in Religion/Politics, I?m fine with that, move at your discretion. I just posted it here because it?s the argument I?m discussing, not the movement itself.
So here?s my deconstruction?
As some of you may be aware, various branches of political feminism often makes the claim that ?The Patriarchy? is a damaging system which is inherently harmful (even oppressive) to women, and men alike. Their goal is to tear down ?The Patriarchy? to free society from social constructed gender roles; which will somehow lead to a feminist utopia. Upon careful examination of this idea, one has to question where the validity in the theory stems from, because as far as I can see; the statement doesn?t make any sense.
What is a Patriarchy? Patriarchy is a social system in which males have the supreme authority in society, including but not limited to; government, family, property, etc. The system normally includes tracking lineage through the father?s side of the family, inheritance given to the eldest son, and generally the establishments of various privileges for males. There are many additional subtleties, but the general gist is that men rule, and girls drool.
Is modern western civilization a Patriarchy? According to the definitions; no. While men do currently hold the majority of political office in the government, they are not there because they are men; but because they were elected by the populace. This is a fundamental difference that many feminist fail to realize; being a man is not a requirement for political office. It is those offices which control the government, which can, and are filled by many women. The US Supreme Court as an example, has 3 female members (out of 9). The United Kingdom also has a well establish Monarchy, whom Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the current incumbent.
Lineage is also currently tracked under both parental lines. Family power is normally governed by the primary guardian of the children, most notably in divorce cases, or who the legal system sides with in cases of disputes (when a family structure is present, otherwise it depends on the dynamics of the couple). Property is held by the owner, who can be male or female. Inheritance is determined by will, or ?next of kin?, which is usually the ?eldest child?, who may be female.
Privileges themselves are often varied depending on gender and circumstance. It can be as simple as ?ladies night? or economic advantages in insurance costs, or having gender specific college grants. A privilege merely describes an inherent advantage one has over another in a specific set of circumstances.
So if modern western society doesn?t qualify according to definition, surely it must be a matter of semantics or ideology? Indeed. The purpose it seems is to illustrate the oppression of a gender based on the social expectations of society. Men are expected to fight and die to protect their family, while women are expected to bare and look after children, etc. So we?ve determined that certain social expectations are built from biological function.
When we examine the actual biology, only women can have children, and during the process are at a serious disadvantage in physical terms, that required the care and protection of another who did not have that burden to bare. Social constructs were derived from the biological necessity of the survival of the specie. Men, to this day, are still ostracized by society for their failure to insure the well being of their offspring.
Then it can?t be beneficial social constructs that feminists oppose? Exactly; because any feminist will still decry a man?s failure to take care of his children, following the current social constructed expectation of a gender role. When they are against, is the notion that a woman is expected to bare children. What they fail to realize, is that this expectation is still derived from its biological component, and more so by women than men. As the bearers of children, women understand the drive, the burden and the joy that his child birth. Men can only support a woman in her choices; which is supports not only by current socially derived gender constructs, but by legislation as well. Abortion, at its core, is gynocentric; it has nothing to do with men.
So perhaps the issue is merely with expectation? That?s precisely the goal of ?The Patriarchy? as an argument; to remove the stigma associated with gender roles and social expectation that?s built around them. Society currently provides equal opportunity to anyone to do anything they really want, the only limitations are the individuals success and their individual means to obtain what they want. The only actual opposition is a self fulfilling prophecy. ?Requirements? in success, are not forms of oppression as some might argue.
Does modern western society oppress women specifically in anyway? Not exactly. There are various political movements which can create additional hardships on women (such as the abortion debate), but this is the nature of a democratic civilization; every voice will be heard, and disagreements will happen. This democratic process of political discourse is often perceived as an oppressive patriarchy. What a singular political movement may do, such as a Republican Conservative viewpoint, gets applied across the board as the only valid representation of government; which is a fallacy in reasoning.
Specific positions, such as the ?wage gap?, is also used to critique ?The Patriarchy?, but fails to consider that if provable, the business guilty of wage discrimination would face harsh fines (and more) against the legislation that exists to protect *people* from wage discrimination for numerous reasons, including gender.
So how is ?The Patriarchy? harmful to men? It isn?t. The argument is still derived from the idea that the system oppresses men who choose to ignore gender based expectations to pursue their individual goals. Men don?t have to have children, but they are responsible for them if they do. The system doesn?t require anything specifically of men aside from obeying the laws of their country, as any other citizen is required to do. Individuals and collectives within society are what create problems for men based on their choices; not the society they live in.
We can see other biological and social constructs of a patriarchy within nature. A Lion?s pride is a prime example of a Patriarchy. The largest and strongest male is the head of his pride. Females bare the children, and do the hunting to feed the family. The males protect the pride from any external or internal aggressors. Yet this social system has been in place for thousands of years and the only endangerment to the Lion specie is man. Nature seems to provide an example of how a patriarchy can exist, without inherently harming its members who find themselves restricted by it. So a patriarchy has been proven to be not an inherently harmful system.
A woman is free to have a family, as is a man. A woman is free to have any career they wish, as are men. The problems they face are merely breaking through what would be a dominated balance of gender and social constructs built on that idea; which is external from society as a whole. Gender balances are not the problem of a governing body to rectify; they are biological at their core and further supported by the system with the imbalance. Women are not kept out of the physical sciences merely because they are dominated by men as men are not kept out of the social sciences merely because they are dominated by women.
The difficulty an individual faces with gender dominated environments are more a matter of psychology then social construct. Being the ?odd one out?, and whether or not they have any interest in those fields, even before one can consider their individual merits of success within them. If an individual feels more or less comfortable in an area based on gender disparities; that is a personal problem, not a social one.
?The Patriarchy? becomes a smoke screen. An argument made in the attempt to insure that external reactions to individual choices are not met with individual reactions, but a collective one of positivity. Naturally, any individual would rather meet their choices and actions with positive reactions over negative or even neutral ones; but the notion that it must be a systematic value inherent in the social structure is tantamount to mind control, not to mention a pipe dream.
In essence, political feminists do not want opposition to their various and numerous desires. In order to avoid criticism, and in essence opposition, they have constructed ?The Patriarchy? in the attempt to ethically justify their positions and vilify their detractors. An argument ironically built on the notion of being opposed to gender social expectations, while demanding a new set of gender social expectations which benefit them as a collective.
?The Patriarchy? is a failure of an argument via several steps. First and foremost, modern western civilization cannot be classified as a patriarchy by definition. Second, the arguments in support of the system cannot be proven beyond argument. Third, arguments involving male privilege ignore the evidence of female privilege. Fourth, the system can be seen in nature, indicating that it contains a biological component and gender roles are *not* solely socially constructed. Fifth, evidence in support of its harmful effects require a systemic opposition to an individual?s choice/action autonomous from a collective group or individual that does not benefit them in some fashion.
What is a Patriarchy? Patriarchy is a social system in which males have the supreme authority in society, including but not limited to; government, family, property, etc. The system normally includes tracking lineage through the father?s side of the family, inheritance given to the eldest son, and generally the establishments of various privileges for males. There are many additional subtleties, but the general gist is that men rule, and girls drool.
Is modern western civilization a Patriarchy? According to the definitions; no. While men do currently hold the majority of political office in the government, they are not there because they are men; but because they were elected by the populace. This is a fundamental difference that many feminist fail to realize; being a man is not a requirement for political office. It is those offices which control the government, which can, and are filled by many women. The US Supreme Court as an example, has 3 female members (out of 9). The United Kingdom also has a well establish Monarchy, whom Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the current incumbent.
Lineage is also currently tracked under both parental lines. Family power is normally governed by the primary guardian of the children, most notably in divorce cases, or who the legal system sides with in cases of disputes (when a family structure is present, otherwise it depends on the dynamics of the couple). Property is held by the owner, who can be male or female. Inheritance is determined by will, or ?next of kin?, which is usually the ?eldest child?, who may be female.
Privileges themselves are often varied depending on gender and circumstance. It can be as simple as ?ladies night? or economic advantages in insurance costs, or having gender specific college grants. A privilege merely describes an inherent advantage one has over another in a specific set of circumstances.
So if modern western society doesn?t qualify according to definition, surely it must be a matter of semantics or ideology? Indeed. The purpose it seems is to illustrate the oppression of a gender based on the social expectations of society. Men are expected to fight and die to protect their family, while women are expected to bare and look after children, etc. So we?ve determined that certain social expectations are built from biological function.
When we examine the actual biology, only women can have children, and during the process are at a serious disadvantage in physical terms, that required the care and protection of another who did not have that burden to bare. Social constructs were derived from the biological necessity of the survival of the specie. Men, to this day, are still ostracized by society for their failure to insure the well being of their offspring.
Then it can?t be beneficial social constructs that feminists oppose? Exactly; because any feminist will still decry a man?s failure to take care of his children, following the current social constructed expectation of a gender role. When they are against, is the notion that a woman is expected to bare children. What they fail to realize, is that this expectation is still derived from its biological component, and more so by women than men. As the bearers of children, women understand the drive, the burden and the joy that his child birth. Men can only support a woman in her choices; which is supports not only by current socially derived gender constructs, but by legislation as well. Abortion, at its core, is gynocentric; it has nothing to do with men.
So perhaps the issue is merely with expectation? That?s precisely the goal of ?The Patriarchy? as an argument; to remove the stigma associated with gender roles and social expectation that?s built around them. Society currently provides equal opportunity to anyone to do anything they really want, the only limitations are the individuals success and their individual means to obtain what they want. The only actual opposition is a self fulfilling prophecy. ?Requirements? in success, are not forms of oppression as some might argue.
Does modern western society oppress women specifically in anyway? Not exactly. There are various political movements which can create additional hardships on women (such as the abortion debate), but this is the nature of a democratic civilization; every voice will be heard, and disagreements will happen. This democratic process of political discourse is often perceived as an oppressive patriarchy. What a singular political movement may do, such as a Republican Conservative viewpoint, gets applied across the board as the only valid representation of government; which is a fallacy in reasoning.
Specific positions, such as the ?wage gap?, is also used to critique ?The Patriarchy?, but fails to consider that if provable, the business guilty of wage discrimination would face harsh fines (and more) against the legislation that exists to protect *people* from wage discrimination for numerous reasons, including gender.
So how is ?The Patriarchy? harmful to men? It isn?t. The argument is still derived from the idea that the system oppresses men who choose to ignore gender based expectations to pursue their individual goals. Men don?t have to have children, but they are responsible for them if they do. The system doesn?t require anything specifically of men aside from obeying the laws of their country, as any other citizen is required to do. Individuals and collectives within society are what create problems for men based on their choices; not the society they live in.
We can see other biological and social constructs of a patriarchy within nature. A Lion?s pride is a prime example of a Patriarchy. The largest and strongest male is the head of his pride. Females bare the children, and do the hunting to feed the family. The males protect the pride from any external or internal aggressors. Yet this social system has been in place for thousands of years and the only endangerment to the Lion specie is man. Nature seems to provide an example of how a patriarchy can exist, without inherently harming its members who find themselves restricted by it. So a patriarchy has been proven to be not an inherently harmful system.
A woman is free to have a family, as is a man. A woman is free to have any career they wish, as are men. The problems they face are merely breaking through what would be a dominated balance of gender and social constructs built on that idea; which is external from society as a whole. Gender balances are not the problem of a governing body to rectify; they are biological at their core and further supported by the system with the imbalance. Women are not kept out of the physical sciences merely because they are dominated by men as men are not kept out of the social sciences merely because they are dominated by women.
The difficulty an individual faces with gender dominated environments are more a matter of psychology then social construct. Being the ?odd one out?, and whether or not they have any interest in those fields, even before one can consider their individual merits of success within them. If an individual feels more or less comfortable in an area based on gender disparities; that is a personal problem, not a social one.
?The Patriarchy? becomes a smoke screen. An argument made in the attempt to insure that external reactions to individual choices are not met with individual reactions, but a collective one of positivity. Naturally, any individual would rather meet their choices and actions with positive reactions over negative or even neutral ones; but the notion that it must be a systematic value inherent in the social structure is tantamount to mind control, not to mention a pipe dream.
In essence, political feminists do not want opposition to their various and numerous desires. In order to avoid criticism, and in essence opposition, they have constructed ?The Patriarchy? in the attempt to ethically justify their positions and vilify their detractors. An argument ironically built on the notion of being opposed to gender social expectations, while demanding a new set of gender social expectations which benefit them as a collective.
?The Patriarchy? is a failure of an argument via several steps. First and foremost, modern western civilization cannot be classified as a patriarchy by definition. Second, the arguments in support of the system cannot be proven beyond argument. Third, arguments involving male privilege ignore the evidence of female privilege. Fourth, the system can be seen in nature, indicating that it contains a biological component and gender roles are *not* solely socially constructed. Fifth, evidence in support of its harmful effects require a systemic opposition to an individual?s choice/action autonomous from a collective group or individual that does not benefit them in some fashion.
YOU DON?T KNOW ME! Nah, but seriously? The issue I take with that comeback is that you are disregarding the notion that I, as an individual, have reached this conclusion based on my personal experience with the system, my examination of the argument presented to me and the conclusions based on my research and reasoning of the data against the idea. To put it plainly, your efforts in using my individual case of contention to a political feminist argument of an oppressive society as an example of a oppressive society in the form of ?The Patriarchy? is confirmation bias, nothing more. I will not dignify any fallacious ?comeback? with a response. I will however, clarify anything upon request and consider any ?new? reasonable evidence to the table.
