(Original post by mimi112)
your definition of patriarchy is not one that is enforced, it's just victim mentality for the most part. women can do whatever the hell they want. and btw in some countries women are almost half of people in power (norway, sweden...). like i said women make up most of the voters, it's for them who decide. those men are in power because most women want them to be. obama is the most powerful man in the world because mostly women decided he should be. if only men had the vote romney would be in charge right now. get it?
the other point : in a patriarchal society the man could do anything to his wife short of killing her (even that in some cultures). a wife can get her husband kicked out of his home or even arrested for infinitely less nowadays in a western country. and don't even start with the divorce courts............
You're being overly simplistic and looking at this issue in a childish way. For one thing, I don't see that I "defined" patriarchy anywhere; I used your definition from the first post.
There are varying degrees of patriarchy. Norway and Sweden may be less patriarchal than the US. The US now is less patriarchal than it was a hundred years ago. But that doesn't mean that the patriarchy no longer exists. If you try to say that the US is a matriarchy, I'll laugh in your face. I'm a white woman living in the US, and there are still
acts of everyday discrimination and misogynistic jerks that I have to deal with. All a result of an existing patriarchy.
Also, I can assure you that it's not as simple as "women vote for Obama; men vote for Romney." It's true that Obama was a liberal candidate and women are slightly more likely to be liberal by about 5-10%. But it's still nearly half and half. The amount of women who voted for Obama was only greater than the amount who voted for Romney by a few percent, the amount of men was about the same. It's not that Obama won because women voted for him, it's because he got essentially all
the minority votes (including racial/some religious) and because Romney was an idiot.
The main point you're missing here is that there's a difference between what a woman theoretically can
do- that is, what her legal rights enable her to do- and what she can actually do in practice. Yes, a woman can try to get her husband arrested for domestic violence and succeed if she is very determined, but she also absolutely will be told by people "it's not that bad. Are you sure you really want to take this to court and ruin his career and life? Don't make a big fuss." Because of the patriarchy. Same thing with rape. As for divorce courts, you know why women tend to get control of child care? Because women are seen as more "feminine" and needing to be in the domestic sphere, again, because of the patriarchy. I don't see how you can fail to grasp this.
I've provided an amount of examples I really don't think you can ignore, though I have a feeling you will. You've been bifurcating this issue and looking at it in a simplistic manner, and I have a feeling that since you're male, you'd prefer to be free of guilt by stating that the patriarchy is a thing of the past. You're wrong, and if you ever had to live as a woman in a "modern western democracy" you would understand why. If you continue to insist that these democracies aren't patriarchal after this, you're just being purposely ignorant and I don't really feel like responding.