Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

[sakura184]

The patriarchal takeover began as a means of controlling female reproduction.

It became important for men to know who the father was and thus began a strictly and violently enforced set of social rules-- which is the origin of marriage. Punishments for women who dared to procreate outside marriage were harsh. Their children were cruelly branded bastards and had to deal with the social stigma and poverty that went along with that. ( See the Magdalene laundries in Ireland for general information about how this worked)

But knowing who the father was was no longer enough. Children had become, by law, the father's property. This was the introduction of children as being property whereas before it was generally understood that children belonged to themselves and their mothers had responsibility over them.

I argue that patriarchy is an affront to natural law, and to nature itself. I argue that this is feminism 101

Compare it to what happened to Sade, the father of sadism. He was actually sued by a prostitute for asking her to do what she deemed perverted acts.
Can you imagine that ever happening today!Nowadays women are being killed in the name of sadomasochism "because they like it"

In the course of a trial, there would be other evidence presented to the jury that would either support or contradict the defense's version of events.

From what I read, nearly all cases where this defense is put forward, the juries are typically unconvinced and return a guilty verdict to murder.

sawdustformypony

Let's hope it stays that way. I'll be watching it, seeing as it's quite a new thing ( a new fresh hell basically) I imagine it's hard to get away with this defense if you've killed a wife or girlfriend.

This is why feminists want porn and prostitution banned because it's basically paid rape and men wash away their crimes with cash. But on an ideological level If society agrees that paid rape is okay, then where do you draw the line. What else is ok? Torture? As long as she's getting paid. At what point is the line drawn between torture and murder? Right now we have the prostituted class - a group of women it was always deemed okay to do things with that the wife wouldn't let you do. Now wives and girlfriends are submitting to bdsm practices and it's becoming completely normalized all across the board.
Just think, centuries ago a prostitute could sue a punter for being a sadist. How times have changed

I'm just musing about why men wouldn't make provisions for whore's children in law

I would assume that it's because:

• They creates the institution of marriage (to a virgin) for the reasons you've outlined already

• They added a moral dimension to this to further persuade women to be virgins until marriage and then faithful so that they knew any children were theirs

• Any mistress is clearly not playing by these rules and is seen as a whore

• She's not under the watchful eye of a husband and any children she has cannot he assumed to definitely be his as she is a 'whore' and probably assumed to be sleeping with numerous men.

Therefore 'bastard' children don't get inheritance because of the risk of passing it down to someone else's child.

@BjornAgain81

Actually the latest YouGov poll said 34% of women identify themselves as a feminist

wheresmymojo

Yes totally agree with what you've written. The reason I was "musing" about it was because somebody was trying to say that if men made the rules to benefit them then why didn't the whore's children get inheritance.
Ergo we can conclude that it didnt benefit men to let their bastard children have inheritance rights

The difficulty with this analysis is that inheritance laws that demand legitimacy are also advantageous to the wife, often more so than the husband.

The diffiulty being the assumption that the rule is made to benefit men rather than women. It doesn't allow for an unbiased analysis.

I don’t have a lot of academic research to back this up, but from personal observation is that we took what was supposed to be a complete human psyche and split it in two. We assigned half of human potential masculine and the other feminine. Then we compounded the sin by denigrating the feminine aspect.

In truth there is no human being alive that would not benefit from a healthy expression of either. Ambition and assertiveness to pick a few at random from the masculine or nurturing and compassion from the feminine.

For me the case (intellectually at least) was resolved thousands of years ago with Socrates, who argued that whatever differences existed between men and women they were so negligible that they should by no means represent any sort of barrier to women accessing the exact same opportunities and liberty as men.

One area where I think we have come particularly unstuck is through the objectification of women which actually leads to distinct downsides for men, but bear with me I’ll get to that in a moment. Women as objects either for sexual gratification, childbearing or what amounts to free labour does confer upon women relative to men an intrinsic value within society. However this comes with the distinct downside of a theft of agency, as objects do not have free will.

Men have little intrinsic value relative to women, but we do have greater agency. So men go out make their mark on the world and those who succeed accrue the resources and power. There is a resentment on all sides particularly from women from the obvious lack of agency, but also from men who have failed to marshal their agency into success as from their point of view the intrinsic value of women as objects looks like a far cushier proposition as having no intrinsic value as it leads to being cannon fodder in wars or disposable labour in industry.

I’m also for what it’s worth not trying to lay out a case of men having it worse, as actually I think that’s sort of a fallacious position to look at this from. There are layers with more men at the absolute top (the patriarchs) and men who failed to marshal their agency at the bottom, and interwoven throughout most of the stratas is the ever present resentment of the feminine.

This is obviously a very skeletal analysis with many holes which I do not intend to stand in opposition to what’s been been said already I’m just tossing a few observations in. I do think we need to perhaps level out agency and value across humanity. All people should have value, but never as objects and all people should have agency.

Men have little intrinsic value relative to women, but we do have greater agency. So men go out make their mark on the world and those who succeed accrue the resources and power. There is a resentment on all sides particularly from women from the obvious lack of agency

Feminists argue that women's lack of agency is not natural in any way at all but is an unatural state violently enforced and imposed on us by patriarchy and that in a world liberated from men, women would be able to go on the adventures we always dreamed of as kids without getting raped and killed along the way.

Virginia Woolf spelled this out best when she pondered what would have happened to Shakespeare had he been a woman who went to London to seek her fortune. She said "let's imagine Shakespeare had a sister, let's call her Judith." Well we all know what would've happened to Judith, she would've got raped and killed at the first hurdle and ended up in prostitution at best.

It might pain men to admit the naturally nomadic and non domesticated lives women would choose to lead if we had the freedom to do what we wanted

I would also argue that women's achievements are either downplayed or stolen. Which scientist's work was famously stolen so that her male colleagues were awarded the Nobel prize instead of her? She managed to prove in the end that the work had been hers.

This stealing of women's ideas and innovations by men happens all the time

Just so we’re on the same page what is understood to be “natural” in this context?

I’m not at all ‘pained’ to see women doing their thing on their own terms and adventures should be embarked on by all people. Actually I could well do without rapists as well myself, as I’d prefer not to have to pull them off women in alleys in the middle of the night. Just in case you are not clear of my meaning NOT the fault of the woman who was minding her own business.

I don't want to reiterate but I've talked at length about how professions have been taken and stolen from us by men and how we can trace this historically

So the very notion that only men would specialize, have professions, male their mark in the world and so on is so sexist I can't even.
I remember how floored I was when I discovered women invented beer. Amazing

"Make" their mark

Goosefoot

I don't agree that inheritance laws are more advantageous to the wife. What would be advantageous to wives and women would be if they had their own money.

However

I do agree that wives got something out of marriage. Some feminists argue that marriage is prostitution and I kind of agree: it is a sell out of sorts. But women aren't stupid. They know the advantages for children who know their father: material and social. It can backfire horribly for women who want to divorce though with men enacting their property rights over their kids.

Let's say you decide to contract a marriage with the man who owns the land next to your families land, and a certain amount of land comes with you as a bride price or through some other arrangement. Now there is a very nice large parcel of land that has increased the fortunes of your new family, and will be passed on to your descendants. Al the parts of a good marriage contract.

Now, lets imagine for a moment that the husband has a child with another woman, and for some reason decides to pass down the inheritance to that child.

That is no disadvantage for the husband but it basically has tricked the woman's genetic line out of its wealth and is very disadvantageous for them.

It would be foolish for women with any amount of choice to agree to a marriage arrangement without inheritance within the marriage being part of the deal. Which is why second and third wives, in places where they exist, are often lower status compared to first wives - concubines rather than wives.

Up until the modern period people didn't have much cash anyway, nor a sense of individualism where they stood apart from their family as individuals. So its no surprise that they didn't really expect those things.

And its not patriarchy or some unfair assertion of power that children are better off when their fathers contribute to their up-bringing. So yes, women have an interest, society has an interest, in fathers being attached to their kids.

No, I don't think this is true. The military is one way to access free higher ed in the US, for boys and girls. State schools arrangements seem to vary a lot according to which state you are in but most aren't free for boys or girls.

Ok, I may be wrong about a few details, but the below article from May 2019 states that failure to register for the draft bars men from federal aid and grants. Seems that with women now able to serve in combat roles the male only draft is being viewed as 'unconstitutional' by many.

Within 30 days of his 18th birthday, every male citizen and legal resident is required to register for Selective Service, either by filling out a postcard-size form or going online.

What's less well known is what happens on a man's 26th birthday.

Men who fail to register for the draft by then can no longer do so – forever closing the door to government benefits like student aid, a government job or even U.S. citizenship. Federal student aid is the most common problem for men who haven't registered for the draft, according Selective Service data obtained by USA TODAY.

An appeal can be costly and time-consuming. Selective Service statistics suggest that more than 1 million men have been denied some government benefit because they weren't registered for the draft.

Forgot to link source...

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3205425002

It certainly doesn't sound like a privilege!

Goosefoot

Yes for sure one of the deals that wives cut with men is that it is their children that should inherit.

However if women had the means to support children because resources hadn't been stolen from them via unpaid and cheap labour then there really wouldn't be much need for marriage on the woman's part. Hoarding resources is absolutely a male prerogative and I argue that this is what war is all about- the pillaging in order to hoard more to have bargaining chips with women.

Women don't need to hoard in order to have bargaining chips with men- we know any children we produce are ours. There's no need for us to bargain to ensure our lineage.

but what women do need is enough resources to raise children comfortably by themselves. Not so life is a slog and a struggle and a nightmare. But comfortably able to have a child or two without bargaining with men.

Fathers don't have a great track record and in America especially there have been huge issues with childhood sexual abuse and then often in these cases the mother is not able to leave for economic reasons. Also there's domestic violence and wife murder , which we've covered. So while there are benefits to having a father this really has to be balanced against the violence fathers are known to commit against the mother of their kids.

Is it a case of luck then? Having a known ad involved father just works out well for some women and not for others. Do the women who think it has worked or well for them to have the father around think they've done something right that other women haven't. Other women weren't clever enough to pick the right man?

I do want to say that this whole set up sounds like it benefits the beta males.

One thing I find myself agreeing with the incels about is that there are a few alpha type men ( or "Chads" as the incels call them) and these men get the women. The men who don't need bargaining chips with women and the men women would even share with other women.

There are a few men who don't really need patriarchy in order to get women and reproduce. Quite a lot of men do depend on patriarchy for this though.

BjornAgain81

Yes, I see what you mean better now, I think I misunderstood. I think all young men are supposed to register though I don't know how easy it is to avoid that. In most cases it doesn't make any real difference of course because they haven't called up from the draft list for a generation or two.

Girls aren't subject to the draft.

State schools in the US aren't usually free, but they can be a lot less expensive if it is your state.