Yes, Patriarchy Is Dead; the Feminists Prove It

[Major Nikon]

15. What better way to protect than through control?

The example you give in Yemen is one of the best out there. The fact that women and children were treated as property also reinforces that point. As such they had material value and things that had material value were necessary to protect unless geographic advantages did it for you. There was always someone out there who wanted to take away anything you had of value. I'm at a loss here as to how you think you've contradicted me.

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.

You are arguing against things I've never claimed which is strawman. I never claimed men's issues under the patriarchy were ignored by feminists. Many feminists were fully aware that with shared benefits comes shared responsibilities. That's what gender parity is all about. I've acknowledged this many times and have no problem giving credit where credit is due. Feminists are hardly monolithic. The only thing that is true for all feminists is that they advocate for women. The expectation that all feminists will or should advocate for men's issues is not a good one.

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.

You should take that soapbox to someone who actually has that need. I don't.

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.

I'm generally quite careful with the words I use, but you got me there. I should have said all known civilizations on earth. The author of your reference died in 1987 and although I'm sure his ideas are still passed around in certain circles today, they were controversial even in his time and contemporary thought on the subject has all but exposed it as what you call, "bullshit".

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[51][52][53] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[48] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[54] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[55] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.[citation needed] There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[3] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.[56]

Matriarchs, according to Peoples and Bailey, do exist; there are "individual matriarchs of families and kin groups."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution