I want to explain why I think the patriarchy is a myth. Feel free to debate, which is the most important.Before we proceed with the main points of my argument, it is important to define patriarchy. I have taken two definitions from the internet:
First off, at the start of civilization, naturally and evolutionarily, both men and women had roles, which were not consciously decided upon, but rather became natural because of the psychological and physical differences of men. These roles were necessary for the survival of the species. Lets name a few examples: every civilization through history has had armies, which were made of mostly (99%) of men. Men have the natural characteristics for war, mentally and physically. Nonetheless, war causes great harm to the men who participate it. If patriarchy is really for the benefit of men, why are armies made of men? Another example is the role of the father as a worker, and mother as a housewife. The father might die on the field bitten by a snake, while the mother stays safely at home. Was this chosen by males? If both genres have roles, some which harm the man, can we really call it a patriarchal society? There was no conscious effort of men to opress women, it was simply the natural development of a species based on their genres. Why have been most socities all over the world "patriarchal"? Did all men, all around the world, simultaneously, decided to opress women for their benefit? I find this absurd. In addition, the "patriarchal" structure can be seen in the animal kingdom too (monkeys, tigers, even insects). If animals are incapable of thought and will, then why does it happen? For nature there is no "matriarchy" or "patriarchy".
Let's tackle other questions such as why there have been more male leaders historically. Psychologically it has been proven that people wit characteristics such as deep voice, strong facial structure, etc., appear as better leaders for the population than people who do not. Now, usually, men fulfill these requirements. Does it mean women can't be leaders? Absolutely not. But there might a natural tendency to choose men as leaders deeply ingrained in our brains. Thus, it was not that men subjugated women and forced them into choosing a man as a leader. Consider also, that being in a position of power is not always pleasurable or beneficial, and many men would rather not take it. Furthermore, the quantity of men who lead compared to the quantity of men who obey is extremely small. For example, only few men could vote in the past, usually those of high socio-economic status, and those who served them vote for who they were told to. They had no freedom of choice.
Another example is arranged marriages. The most popular definition of arranged marriage is the one in which the "evil and powerful man" takes a woman by force. But this is misleading. There have been many types of arranged marriages. One, in which the marriage was arranged for both, the male and female, and they could not deny. And the other one in which a man had to proof his worth for a woman, and then she might or might not accept him (this varies depending on other variables such as parents approval, etc.). Such a style of courtship also puts a role and responsability on men to fulfill, which is in no way beneficial for them. The causes, then again, can be traced to the need of survival and evolution.
One more, the statistics of rape. One argument of feminists groups is that male rape women more than women rape men, because of a "patriarchal" society that enables it, that is to say, the collective will of men agrees that raping women is fine (even though there are severe punishments for it). Even though the statistical facts might be correct, the cause attributed is wrong. Men, psychologically and physically are more proned to rape women, which is why there are more rapes from men to women. If the statistics were equal, or even the contrary, it would be extremely rare. It is not that women are more benevolent than men, it is that women do not have the natural tendency for such behavior. Should men be allowed to rape women? Absolutely not. In fact, most men think it is wrong and have established a set of laws against it. Trying to eradicate rape from a "patriarchal" point of view is ridiculous. Rather, to study what causes some men to rape would be a more effective way of prevention. Consider other questions such as the global percentage of men who have raped? Can it still be called a gender problem?
I want to refer now to physical violence, as it is a trait I have repeatedly attributed to men. Instead of seeing violence as an evil weapon exclusively masculine, it should be seen as a neutral tool given by nature for survival. Any of the genres could have been endowed with this tool, in this case the male. When a man saves his family using violence, isn't he considered a hero? And even though it can be used for evil, it was not something men asked for. Men have the advantage of exerting physical violence over women. Does it mean that men have the right to? Of course not. But what it does implies is that women have a more difficult time exerting violence over men, which has defined the course of civilization. What would happen if it were women the ones endowed with the tool of violence? Wouldn't they be the ones using it? Violence has been used by humanity in some of its most important moments, such as the French Revolution. It is not pretty, but it is characteristic of humans.
Within the concept of "patriarchy" is it implicitly stated that men are by nature violent and potential rapists, and that a re-education is necessary for men to avoid such behavior. What if I say that women are potential manipulators and liers, a characteristic given by nature? Because of the women who manipulate a man to their convenience and then break his heart? Would such a statement be accepted? These actions can be considered psychological violence used for satisfying the desires of the woman, the same way men can use violence over a woman to obtain what he desires. Isn't it hypocritical? Should we educate women to not lie? Society generally punishes physical violence more harshly because of its explicit nature, but since psychological violence is invisible it might go unnoticed, minimized and thus unpunished.
The so call "patriarchy" has also benefits (observable in other species) for women, yet they are never mentioned or never attributed to "patriarchy". For example, that men, such as brothers, fathers, husbands, protect the woman. Anyone remembers the Titanic? But when it comes to a "patriarchal" society only the negatives traits are the point of discussion.
It is a grave error to blame men for the state of society, and "patriarchy" is a concept that demonizes men. We have to ask ourselves why society is how it is from an objective, natural, evolutive, and psychological standpoint, and not blame the collective will of a genre, be it women or men. Classifying society in patriarchal or matriarchal is absurd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have written the above firmly believing that nature is a factor we have to inevitably consider when taking about genres in society. I know that I could expand it and go more deep with enough study and analysis, but these are some the general ideas I have. Please feel free to post any criticism.
Thank you for reading.
- A system of social structures and practices, in which men govern, oppress and exploit women
- A society, system, or group in which men dominate women and have the power and authority
First off, at the start of civilization, naturally and evolutionarily, both men and women had roles, which were not consciously decided upon, but rather became natural because of the psychological and physical differences of men. These roles were necessary for the survival of the species. Lets name a few examples: every civilization through history has had armies, which were made of mostly (99%) of men. Men have the natural characteristics for war, mentally and physically. Nonetheless, war causes great harm to the men who participate it. If patriarchy is really for the benefit of men, why are armies made of men? Another example is the role of the father as a worker, and mother as a housewife. The father might die on the field bitten by a snake, while the mother stays safely at home. Was this chosen by males? If both genres have roles, some which harm the man, can we really call it a patriarchal society? There was no conscious effort of men to opress women, it was simply the natural development of a species based on their genres. Why have been most socities all over the world "patriarchal"? Did all men, all around the world, simultaneously, decided to opress women for their benefit? I find this absurd. In addition, the "patriarchal" structure can be seen in the animal kingdom too (monkeys, tigers, even insects). If animals are incapable of thought and will, then why does it happen? For nature there is no "matriarchy" or "patriarchy".
Let's tackle other questions such as why there have been more male leaders historically. Psychologically it has been proven that people wit characteristics such as deep voice, strong facial structure, etc., appear as better leaders for the population than people who do not. Now, usually, men fulfill these requirements. Does it mean women can't be leaders? Absolutely not. But there might a natural tendency to choose men as leaders deeply ingrained in our brains. Thus, it was not that men subjugated women and forced them into choosing a man as a leader. Consider also, that being in a position of power is not always pleasurable or beneficial, and many men would rather not take it. Furthermore, the quantity of men who lead compared to the quantity of men who obey is extremely small. For example, only few men could vote in the past, usually those of high socio-economic status, and those who served them vote for who they were told to. They had no freedom of choice.
Another example is arranged marriages. The most popular definition of arranged marriage is the one in which the "evil and powerful man" takes a woman by force. But this is misleading. There have been many types of arranged marriages. One, in which the marriage was arranged for both, the male and female, and they could not deny. And the other one in which a man had to proof his worth for a woman, and then she might or might not accept him (this varies depending on other variables such as parents approval, etc.). Such a style of courtship also puts a role and responsability on men to fulfill, which is in no way beneficial for them. The causes, then again, can be traced to the need of survival and evolution.
One more, the statistics of rape. One argument of feminists groups is that male rape women more than women rape men, because of a "patriarchal" society that enables it, that is to say, the collective will of men agrees that raping women is fine (even though there are severe punishments for it). Even though the statistical facts might be correct, the cause attributed is wrong. Men, psychologically and physically are more proned to rape women, which is why there are more rapes from men to women. If the statistics were equal, or even the contrary, it would be extremely rare. It is not that women are more benevolent than men, it is that women do not have the natural tendency for such behavior. Should men be allowed to rape women? Absolutely not. In fact, most men think it is wrong and have established a set of laws against it. Trying to eradicate rape from a "patriarchal" point of view is ridiculous. Rather, to study what causes some men to rape would be a more effective way of prevention. Consider other questions such as the global percentage of men who have raped? Can it still be called a gender problem?
I want to refer now to physical violence, as it is a trait I have repeatedly attributed to men. Instead of seeing violence as an evil weapon exclusively masculine, it should be seen as a neutral tool given by nature for survival. Any of the genres could have been endowed with this tool, in this case the male. When a man saves his family using violence, isn't he considered a hero? And even though it can be used for evil, it was not something men asked for. Men have the advantage of exerting physical violence over women. Does it mean that men have the right to? Of course not. But what it does implies is that women have a more difficult time exerting violence over men, which has defined the course of civilization. What would happen if it were women the ones endowed with the tool of violence? Wouldn't they be the ones using it? Violence has been used by humanity in some of its most important moments, such as the French Revolution. It is not pretty, but it is characteristic of humans.
Within the concept of "patriarchy" is it implicitly stated that men are by nature violent and potential rapists, and that a re-education is necessary for men to avoid such behavior. What if I say that women are potential manipulators and liers, a characteristic given by nature? Because of the women who manipulate a man to their convenience and then break his heart? Would such a statement be accepted? These actions can be considered psychological violence used for satisfying the desires of the woman, the same way men can use violence over a woman to obtain what he desires. Isn't it hypocritical? Should we educate women to not lie? Society generally punishes physical violence more harshly because of its explicit nature, but since psychological violence is invisible it might go unnoticed, minimized and thus unpunished.
The so call "patriarchy" has also benefits (observable in other species) for women, yet they are never mentioned or never attributed to "patriarchy". For example, that men, such as brothers, fathers, husbands, protect the woman. Anyone remembers the Titanic? But when it comes to a "patriarchal" society only the negatives traits are the point of discussion.
It is a grave error to blame men for the state of society, and "patriarchy" is a concept that demonizes men. We have to ask ourselves why society is how it is from an objective, natural, evolutive, and psychological standpoint, and not blame the collective will of a genre, be it women or men. Classifying society in patriarchal or matriarchal is absurd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have written the above firmly believing that nature is a factor we have to inevitably consider when taking about genres in society. I know that I could expand it and go more deep with enough study and analysis, but these are some the general ideas I have. Please feel free to post any criticism.
Thank you for reading.
