Yes, Patriarchy Is Dead; the Feminists Prove It

[thucythucy]

18. In terms of patriarchy vs. matriarchy

I think it's more ambiguous than you think. Yeah, Campbell is dead, and much of his theorizing has been disputed if not discredited, though his tetraology still offers a wealth of information, and remains an important resource in terms of providing a general study of comparative mythology. Much like Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire remains a valuable resource, even if it's been superceded by more modern scholarship. I'm curious though, have you actually read the tetraology, or just what the critics say about it? If you haven't read it you really should, I think you'll be quite surprised and engaged by the material. I especially enjoyed his teasing out all the more or less pagan elements that were carried forward into modern Christianity--the whole bread and wine sacrifice/sacrament package, as just one example. It's a couple of thousand pages, but well worth the time, IMHO.

In any case, there are more recent scholars who reach more ambiguous, one might say more nuanced conclusions about the universality of the patriarchy, which is what you were originally arguing. Check out, for instance, Alice Schlegel's work on gender relations in Hopi culture. I still think to say, as you did, that all civilizations in all times have been patriarchies is a bridge too far, as you seem to acknowledge. It was entirely too cock-sure, if you'll pardon the pun. But again that's just my opinion.

The "straw man" to which you refer was more in response to the OP, and to what I see as a shit-stirring article that had more to do with feminist bashing than much else. As I say elsewhere, it reminds me of all the "post racial society" BS we've seen of late, wherein racism is pronounced dead and the only reason we have a civil rights movement is to provide a sinecure for "so-called leaders." And the more people point to examples of remaining institutional racism, the more we hear cries of "You see! They're just so invested in being victims!" It saddens me to think that there are progressives who might for a moment fall for such nonsense. Clearly, then, if there are, you're not one of them.

So you're saying patriarchies were established "to protect" women, and your definition of "protection" in this instance is essentially putting them in a corral along with the other lifestock? Pardon me, but I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that treating another human being as property is actually a form of "protection." Protection from what? one might ask. But okay, if that's what you're maintaining, you have no argument from me. Put it that way and it sounds something like Gerda Lerner.

If that's how you see the vast majority of the history of gender relations, I can't disagree. I just wasn't expecting such a more or less straight-up or even radical feminist view of male/female history. My bad.

Getting back to the OP, I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that several thousand years of social history can be negated by one or two generations of activism--even if it was activism by an amazing cohort of feminist leaders. Sisterhood is powerful, but not nearly as powerful as all that.