Is patriarchy theory sexist towards women? Watch

TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
The patriarchy is a a thought process, a belief system which posits men hold onto power to keep women down. It operates from a position of believing masculine values are innately 'bad' but doesn't extend to defining what these values are, who manufactures them, or how it's anything other than a prejudiced outlook placed on an indeterminate amount of men, all of whom are presumed to share similar characteristics.

It's a bit like starting your sentence 'all black men are'...but you wouldn't do that, that would be racist. 'Patriarchy theory' is a socially acceptable prejudice. It doesn't exist in any physical form, it's not a fact and it requires faith and belief to accept. It's basically a religion but I digress.

Surely patriarchy theory is sexist? I think the part which annoys me most is the notion that women have absolutely no sense of self independent of the patriarchy.

Women's entire status or sense of self, as far as patriarchy theory is concerned, is wrapped up in what men (the patriarchy) deem it to be. As if they have no autonomy, and no ability to determine their own outcomes in life, independently of men ('the patriarchy').

Women aren't anything until viewed through the prism of 'patriarchy'...really? Is that how women see themselves (genuine question)? That's child-like.

Apparently 'the patriarchy' infantilises women, but doesn't patriarchy theory infantilise women even more, i.e., in as much as women won't be anything until men - the patriarchy - reform their ways?

It argues that the product of 'the patriarchy' - the infantilised female - rebukes the thought process or model for its oppressive tendencies, while it simultaneously has handed her every right in her existence. It flies in the face of every woman who operates in an infantile manner to accrue preferential treatment. Despite being wildly opposed to the purported infantilisation of the patriarchy, all feminism ever does is portray women as infantile.
0
reply
black_mamba
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Interesting thread - not much debate from me I'm afraid as I agree. In fact, when I was younger and identified as a feminist, even then I did not agree with the idea of patriarchy in the western world. Perhaps in certain parts of the middle east (where my parents are from), you could say that yes there are definitely signs of a patriarchal society, but here in the UK? No chance.

Patriarchy as an excuse feels like a pathetic cop out. The law is on our side here, sexism exists but cuts both ways, so I don't believe in patriarchy.
2
reply
littlebitofsky
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Your post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term 'patriarchy' actually means. A patriarchal society is one in which positions of power are held primarily by men, and in which property, rights, names and titles are inherited via male kin.

Patriarchy theory refers to the social system in which a society operates, not the individuals within that society. It is not the fault of most men that society operates like this, nor is it the fault of most women.

In a broad sense patriarchal societies hold traditionally 'masculine' traits above traditionally 'female' traits. Traditionally masculine traits include aggressiveness, competitiveness, independence and physical strength, and traditionally female traits include sensitivity, kindness, innocence and submissiveness. This benefits anyone who is a) male and b) has these traits, while simultaneously putting down anyone else. However, it also damages these chosen few, by limiting their opportunities and preventing them from being anything other than 'masculine'.

A recognition that patriarchy exists does not necessarily render traditionally 'masculine' traits as bad. They are still positive traits to have. All feminists are saying is that feminine traits are positive too, and that being male/having masculine traits should not entitle anyone to positions of power, nor inherent authority and social status,

Patriarchy places limits on everyone, male or female. That doesn't mean that they should accept it, though. Devolution of patriarchy would benefit all of society.
2
reply
drowzee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by black_mamba)
Interesting thread - not much debate from me I'm afraid as I agree. In fact, when I was younger and identified as a feminist, even then I did not agree with the idea of patriarchy in the western world. Perhaps in certain parts of the middle east (where my parents are from), you could say that yes there are definitely signs of a patriarchal society, but here in the UK? No chance.

Patriarchy as an excuse feels like a pathetic cop out. The law is on our side here, sexism exists but cuts both ways, so I don't believe in patriarchy.
You and the op seem to have confused the definition of patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a thought process, nor a belief system. A patriarchy is a system of society in which men hold most of the power, so yes, you could say we still live in a patriarchal society, to some extent.

(Original post by littlebitofsky)
Your post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term 'patriarchy' actually means. A patriarchal society is one in which positions of power are held primarily by men, and in which property, rights, names and titles are inherited via male kin.

Patriarchy theory refers to the social system in which a society operates, not the individuals within that society. It is not the fault of most men that society operates like this, nor is it the fault of most women.

In a broad sense patriarchal societies hold traditionally 'masculine' traits above traditionally 'female' traits. Traditionally masculine traits include aggressiveness, competitiveness, independence and physical strength, and traditionally female traits include sensitivity, kindness, innocence and submissiveness. This benefits anyone who is a) male and b) has these traits, while simultaneously putting down anyone else. However, it also damages these chosen few, by limiting their opportunities and preventing them from being anything other than 'masculine'.

A recognition that patriarchy exists does not necessarily render traditionally 'masculine' traits as bad. They are still positive traits to have. All feminists are saying is that feminine traits are positive too, and that being male/having masculine traits should not entitle anyone to positions of power, nor inherent authority and social status,

Patriarchy places limits on everyone, male or female. That doesn't mean that they should accept it, though. Devolution of patriarchy would benefit all of society.
+1
You have pretty much stated everything I wanted to say.
0
reply
black_mamba
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by drowzee)
You and the op seem to have confused the definition of patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a thought process, nor a belief system. A patriarchy is a system of society in which men hold most of the power, so yes, you could say we still live in a patriarchal society, to some extent.


+1
You have pretty much stated everything I wanted to say.
What I find confusing here is that I don't see why men having majority power inherently means anything bad. Can patriarchy ever be a neutral thing? I thought patriarchy simply meant a society where men hold most of the power AND women have no opportunity to do the same, which would imply a sexist society. Sorry if it seems I'm splitting hairs but this is really interesting and to me is at the crux of the issue.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by littlebitofsky)
Your post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term 'patriarchy' actually means.
First time I've ever heard that. 'I get it, we all get it, you're just ignorant. Join us, join the believers and have faith in an intangible theory which infantilises all of femininity.'

(Original post by littlebitofsky)
A patriarchal society is one in which positions of power are held primarily by men, and in which property, rights, names and titles are inherited via male kin.
Like primary school teaching, the psychology profession, university applicants, women-only shortlists, the charity sector, the public sector, certain medical specialisms and about one thousand other sectors/institutions I care to name?

Like road working, power line installation, building, carpentry, sewage workers, sanitation workers, and pretty much anything involving manual labour?
(Original post by littlebitofsky)
In a broad sense patriarchal societies hold traditionally 'masculine' traits above traditionally 'female' traits. Traditionally masculine traits include aggressiveness, competitiveness, independence and physical strength, and traditionally female traits include sensitivity, kindness, innocence and submissiveness. This benefits anyone who is a) male and b) has these traits, while simultaneously putting down anyone else.
1. Can you prove this society exists please.
2. This is precisely how I defined patriarchy theory in my OP.

(Original post by littlebitofsky)
A recognition that patriarchy exists does not necessarily render traditionally 'masculine' traits as bad. They are still positive traits to have. All feminists are saying is that feminine traits are positive too, and that being male/having masculine traits should not entitle anyone to positions of power, nor inherent authority and social status,
Can you provide an example and evidence of a situation in which this has occurred please? Or do I need to take a leap of faith?

(Original post by littlebitofsky)
Patriarchy places limits on everyone, male or female. That doesn't mean that they should accept it, though. Devolution of patriarchy would benefit all of society.
The patriarchy doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale. You've provided no evidence of its existence other than your perception and you've worked on the basis 'patriarchy exists because you can't prove otherwise.' It's a bit like the Catholic Church and its belief in God, really. More to the point, you haven't addressed the central point of this thread. By viewing society solely through the model of 'patriarchy', you are suggesting that women are nothing unless compared relative to men. I reject that notion. I actually find it incredibly sexist.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by drowzee)
You and the op seem to have confused the definition of patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a thought process, nor a belief system. A patriarchy is a system of society in which men hold most of the power, so yes, you could say we still live in a patriarchal society, to some extent.


+1
You have pretty much stated everything I wanted to say.
The patriarchy isn't anything, it's a theory. It has got about as much practical relevance as pixies, flying unicorns and sky fairies.

You can't prove it exists; all you can prove is your belief it does exist. All you can articulate is your perception, in the same way a Christian will gladly state unequivocally 'God exists.' It's all belief, no substance.

What's worse, it's a restrictive theory and yet another label. It suggests women aren't anything until they are viewed through the oppressive prism otherwise known as the 'patriarchy.' The patriarchy has, in essence, defined all of femininity. Which, irrespective of how you spin it, is grossly offensive.

Why can't women exist as women independently of a relative comparison to males? Surely that's a far more positive message?
0
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
We live in a democracy. Men don't hold all the power; those that are chosen by the people hold the power.
0
reply
saeed97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jonny360)
We live in a democracy. Men don't hold all the power; those that are chosen by the people hold the power.
I dont remember electing the bankers 😂😂
0
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by saeed97)
I dont remember electing the bankers 😂😂
Bankers don't have legislative power...
1
reply
saeed97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jonny360)
Bankers don't have legislative power...
Money talks my friend, the bigger your pocket is the louder your voice becomes.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Jonny360)
We live in a democracy. Men don't hold all the power; those that are chosen by the people hold the power.
Even those choosing the people who the people are then allowed to choose between rig the 'process' in favour of women, until it operates against their own self-interest.

Harriet Harman was all in favour of women-only shortlists until her husband needed a safe seat.
0
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by saeed97)
Money talks my friend, the bigger your pocket is the louder your voice becomes.
A banker's vote is worth the same as mine or yours. Wealth makes no difference to it.
0
reply
saeed97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Jonny360)
A banker's vote is worth the same as mine or yours. Wealth makes no difference to it.
If it wasnt so cute your naivety would actually hurt my brain.
0
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by saeed97)
If it wasnt so cute your naivety would actually hurt my brain.
Nice argument m8!
0
reply
saeed97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Jonny360)
Nice argument m8!
Cheers MVIII took me all day to write it up
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Jonny360)
A banker's vote is worth the same as mine or yours. Wealth makes no difference to it.
'I don't claim to have controlled events but confess plainly events have controlled me.' Abraham Lincoln.

A huge coffee chain refuses to pay its corporation tax. It exploits every loophole in existence. Inevitably, it turns out they only paid 1% tax on their profits, as opposed to the mandated 20%. The cost to the taxpayer, is, say, £200 million.

Now, what do you do? Do you chase this corporation, or do you let them away with it? If you chase them you risk pissing them off (bye bye coffee chain, say good bye to the millions they contribute to the exchequer); if you demand they pay more than 1%, they could recover the losses in the form of dismissing staff (more unemployment, bad for the stats).

You don't just lose whatever income tax these people are generating, you lose their economic output, too (until they can find a new job). What's worse, a large shareholder is also a prominent donor to your political party (this donor's wealth is infinitely more important to the PM than your vote).

Money always plays a part. The Prime Minister is far from being the most powerful man in The UK - irrespective of which direction he looks, someone is controlling his access to power, be it the MSM, be it a large corporation, be it an important donor to his party, be it his own cabinet, etc.. It doesn't matter how high you get, someone is pulling your strings. That's a good thing in a way, no-one should have too much power, there should always be checks and balances, i.e., The Supreme Court is one such institution which can hold even Parliament to account by conducting a judicial review.
0
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by saeed97)
Cheers MVIII took me all day to write it up
WOW! It would've taken me all week to come up with something as clever and thought provoking as your last comment!
0
reply
Jonny360
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
'I don't claim to have controlled events but confess plainly events have controlled me.' Abraham Lincoln.

A huge coffee chain refuses to pay its corporation tax. It exploits every loophole in existence. Inevitably, it turns out they only paid 1% tax on their profits, as opposed to the mandated 20%. The cost to the taxpayer, is, say, £200 million.

Now, what do you do? Do you chase this corporation, or do you let them away with it? If you chase them you risk pissing them off (bye bye coffee chain, say good bye to the millions they contribute to the exchequer); if you demand they pay more than 1%, they could recover the losses in the form of dismissing staff (more unemployment, bad for the stats).

You don't just lose whatever income tax these people are generating, you lose their economic output, too (until they can find a new job). What's worse, a large shareholder is also a prominent donor to your political party. What do you do?

Money always plays a part. The Prime Minister is far from being the most powerful man in The UK - irrespective of which direction he looks, someone is controlling his access to power, be it the MSM, be it a large corporation, be it an important donor to his party, be it his own cabinet, etc.. It doesn't matter how high you get, someone is pulling your strings. That's a good thing in a way, no-one should have too much power (for example, The Supreme Court is one such institution which can hold even Parliament to account (by conducting a judicial review).
Don't vote for someone who is sympathetic to businesses that don't pay taxes then. That is how democracy works; you choose who you want to rule... : /
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Jonny360)
Don't vote for someone who is sympathetic to businesses that don't pay taxes then. That is how democracy works; you choose who you want to rule... : /
Every single party is sympathetic to business. They have to be, businesses generate the country's wealth.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (208)
23.64%
Pop (218)
24.77%
Jazz (33)
3.75%
Classical (49)
5.57%
Hip-Hop (169)
19.2%
Electronic (60)
6.82%
Indie (143)
16.25%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed