Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

You are making way too many assumptions though. You know abortion is as likely to be opposed by women as men? And that like infanticide, there have been times when abortion was seen as being anti-woman, and diallowing it was seen as redressing a power imbalance that favoured men? There issues are complex and you are looking at things with the assumption that our values in the 21st century around equality are not only right, but that cultures and societies that saw things differently were doing so because they took the opposite viewpoint value wise. That seems logical at one level but it often isn't actually true.

Part of the problem is the word "patriarchy." It's often a lazy word that can mean anything and nothing, and it gets used as a sort of blanket explanation without the need to really connect the dots in a rigorous way.

It's rather like the term "systemic racism". Someone says, why do black Americans have lower educational attainments, or why are mothers more likely to have poor birth outcomes, or anything else, and the answer is "systemic racism." But that actually tells you nothing about the material reality of what is going on, it tells you nothing about the actual historical origin of the situation, it tells you nothing about the way the situation is perpetuated or embedded in institutions, or how it acts psychologically or economically. It can offer no suggestions about possible solutions or change. It just sounds good, and the person hearing the word can imagine any content they want which is really useful for manipulators.

Personally unless people are willing to define patriarchy very narrowly I think it would be better to drop it and use more specific language.

quillette.com/2018/11/25/on-the-nature-of-patriarchy/
Quite a long read but interesting.

That isn't to say that patriarchy doesn't exist when clearly it does. But it wasn't a conscious act on the part of men to overthrow some idyllic female world. It came out of the struggle of all humans to safeguard their future. Now that our modern societies no longer require men to protect women, the need for it no longer exists either. That is what we should be focussing on. But after millennia of it being this way, this will take time.

If men are all so horrible, why does the human race still exist? There has to have been something in it for women unless we were all locked up and repeatedly raped. Which plainly isn't true.

Monogamy is beneficial to both men and women. Benefits to men include the certainty of their genes going forward to future generations, which is part of the male impetus to procreate. Benefits for women include ongoing support and nurture long enough for children to become independent, thus sending their genes forward to future generations. Like all animals, we exist to create more of ourselves.

To argue that there was once a nirvana where women ran things, that was cruelly overtaken by patriarchy is pure fantasy.

A woman complaining about patriarchy is not being sexist. A black woman complaining about white supremacy is not being racist.

These things are not identical just because you choose to compare them. It being ok for a black person to talk about racism doesn't make any particular claim about patriarchy legitimate. In any case it is totally legitimate to criticise something said about racism by a black person if it is untrue or doesn't make sense.

Many social practices and institutions like marriage, like monogamy, etc, have advantages that aren't just about promoting men's interests. You don't need to assume some sort of engineering by men to account for them, some have advantages for women or even more, for society as a whole.

It is an advantage for more people to be able to marry rather that all women to be married off to fewer powerful men - it's generally better for women as well, but it is probably somewhat stabilising to society. Women (and children) are not necessarily better off in societies where divorce is easy and people can change partners at will, whatever modern women who have the advantage of sex without procreation might think. Limiting of sex partners has things going for it in terms of public health as well which is advantageous to everyone.

It's not enough to say, X is nice for men, to show the development of patriarchy.

"There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women; and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the coloredmen will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before. So I am for keeping the thing going while things are stirring; because if we wait till it is still, it will
take a great while to get it going again." ~ Sojourner Truth

I don't think black male slaves would've taken much solace in the fact that the white overseer whipping them also had a penis.

Well, there are undoubtedly plenty of reprehensible opportunists and low lifes out there - not only good people are persecuted I'm sure.

However, I don't see how that really relates to my point that a male victim is no less a victim for sharing his sex with his persecutor.

I'm not having a pop at feminism btw. I just think that it's only one angle amongst many to be considered.

Violence is a male modus operandi not a female one. The fact that men have throughout history followed the 'big man' route of warlords and power isn't down to women.

True, but it isn't down to the majority of men either who aren't in control.

For example, take the male falun gong practitioners who were horrifically abused (or male Jews in the holocaust). Are we really going to victim blame them because they were the same sex as their persecutors?

I think it's easy to forget that race, religion, politics etc are often as dividing as gender.

BjornAgain81
But men are the main victims of male violence, both assaults and suicide. 40x more men kill themselves weekly than they do women (not that either is ok).
I'm not sure what your point is.
Firstly this is male on male violence which is also subject to social strictures created by man e.g. warfare and warrior status, hard man picking on weaker man, enforcing social norms, intimidating to gain power etc etc.
Violence by men against women is about domination and coercion or social face such as honour based violence.
Violence is a male modus operandi not a female one. The fact that men have throughout history followed the 'big man' route of warlords and power isn't down to women. In fact many cultures actually codify violence against women as a social good.

What I do know for sure is things got a lot worse for women in the West around the time of industrial revolution. In 2019 Food, for example, is entirely in the hands of men whereas it never used to be in the past.

You clearly know more than me about the supply chain but I'm not sure I agree with this statement at face value.

Wasn't it still legal to rape your wife back then? And were young women dominating men in education and pay like they are now? Were they even allowed to work in prestigious jobs back then or be in charge of male reports?

Does the average married woman on her way to Tesco to do the weekly shop really worry about food being 'in the hands of men'?

Interesting article, onsen. :)