Yes, Patriarchy Is Dead; the Feminists Prove It

[thucythucy]

14. I disagree with the assertion that

"The reason the patriarchy was created in the first place was a social construct to protect women at the expense of men."

Sorry, but that's bullshit. I look at the purest forms of patriarchy in the world today--in Yemen for instance--and I don't see anything in place to "protect women" in any way shape or form, certainly not at the expense of men. "Control" women, yes. Absolutely. Women's reproductive organs as means of production, which need to be carefully and entirely controlled by men, certainly. Women's sexuality needing to be controlled, curtailed, vilified, absolutely. But the motive in these and other cases is hardly "to protect" women.

Look at the Hebrew Scriptures, for instance, and how they relate to women and girls. Females are property, pure and simple. Raping a woman is therefore not a crime of violence against her, but is instead a violation of the property rights of the man who "owns" her--father, son, brother--and is dealt with accordingly. That we live in a less fiercely patriarchal society here in the west is the result of centuries of activism, often by women, sometimes by men as well, not to mention our drawing away (thank God!) from the patriarchal strictures of the Bible. And, let's face it, some pure dumb luck as well.

And I certainly haven't seen the abuses men (and boys) suffer under the patriarchy ignored by feminists. To the contrary. The first rape crisis centers in the country were organized in the 1960s and 70s by women, almost always volunteers, who offered their time and resources to assist rape survivors because society in general couldn't be bothered. Very early on many of these same centers (including the one I worked with back in the day) began encountering men and boys who were also victims of rape and incest, who came to them because, again, there was no place else for them to go. The men in their lives, if they knew of the abuse, tended to ridicule them for being "sissies" and "not man enough" to either resist or endure their abuse. The police were even worse to male survivors than to females. So to the extent that male survivors are getting support for their issues today at all is in large part due to the women's--the feminist--anti-rape movement. Not that the men's rights folks would ever acknowledge that.

If you want to organize against war--go for it. Lots of women, including feminists, have been doing that for decades, centuries even, despite the fact that it's men who are the predominant (military) casualties. If you want to organize against unsafe labor practices, against unreasonable expectations of "masculinity" as defined in the patriarchy, against the "male mystique" -- as someone without emotion (except anger), always in control, never vulnerable or tender--by all means, do so. If and when you do you'll find women--including feminists--who will be happy to have you as part of the struggle.

But the incessant need to belittle feminists and feminism as a root or even ancillary cause of male suffering is at best unproductive and at worst quite reactionary.

BTW: when you say "The patriarchy was evolutionary and was established in every civilization on earth" you're ignoring a good deal of archaeological and anthropological evidence to the contrary. Some indigenous North American cultures were matriarchal, as was the civilization on ancient Crete, where women and men evidently shared in important religious and political ceremonies, and where inheritance was matrilineal. Read Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God" especially volume one on "primitive mythology," and his volume on occidental mythology, for a very erudite discussion of matriarchy and patriarchy in the ancient western world.

We can't even begin to name "every civilization on earth" -- let alone discern their political/economic/social structures.