Gender Theory: Intersectionality & The Patriarchy

[Cognisant]

I've done some reading on Gender Theory and I've managed to whittle it down to these three premises

• Gender is a social construct
• Gender is non-binary
• Gender is a structural system that distributes power and privilege to some and disadvantage to others

The first two are debatable but not really relevant to "feminism" so I'm just going to focus on the third.
Indeed some feminists seem quite adamant that gender is not a social construct, funny that.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

The intersectional definition of a "patriarchy" is essentially:

• Anything that disadvantages other genders relative to the male gender.

Which is not the actual definition of a patriarchy, which is as follows:

• a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.

• a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

• a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

The important thing to note is that with an actual patriarchy is that there is a class divide, women can participate in Freemasonry but they can't be a Freemason, women can participate in Islam but they will always be a class apart from the men. It's a bit like sport leagues, women can play soccer competitively but no matter how good they may be as individuals or as a team they're barred from entering the men's league. Likewise men are barred from the women's league, which would be a matriarchy, except its sport not a system of society or governance so the term doesn't really apply in either case.

Now let's examine the intersectional definition "anything that disadvantages other genders relative to the male gender", the key words there are "anything" and "disadvantage". A disadvantage differs from a class in that if you and I are running the same race and you get a head start that's putting me at a disadvantage but we're still in the same race, we're not running separate races, I can still beat you if I am sufficiently faster than you. But that's the kicker isn't it, to win I need to be significantly faster than you (by the margin of the head start) whereas to beat me you only need to be as fast as me, indeed with a wide enough margin you could even win while being slower.

Is the the intersectional definition of a patriarchy useful? Honestly it's not entirely without merit but there are a couple of things that need to be addressed, first I think the use of the term "patriarchy" is misleading and inflammatory, that word already has a definition and portraying a disadvantage as a class divide is overstating things and hyperbole doesn't garner credibility. To really hammer that point home I propose the intersectional definition of a matriarchy, because what's good for gander is good for goose is it not?
The intersectional matriarchy, definition: Anything that disadvantages other genders relative to the female gender.

Which neatly segues into the second issue that needs to be addressed, "anything" is casting a very wide net and I think we need to filter out some things that aren't relevant. Specifically what disadvantages are not due to one's identity (be it a direct result or a consequence of how society treats people of that identity) and of those disadvantages which ones do not have an actual objectively measurable impact that we can account for. Menstrual products are a great example of an intersectional disadvantage, they have a measurable cost but if this cost is only worn by women that's not really fair, we're all humans and humanity needs vaginas, and if humanity needs it society shouldn't make only some humans pay for it.

I think everyone can agree that such intersectional disadvantages should be accounted for and I think framing the discussion by calling it male privilege or a consequence of the patriarchy is both disingenuous and wildly unhelpful.

For example women generally live longer than men, this is an objectively measurable intersectional disadvantage, does that mean women are privileged to live longer, is the fact that society doesn't account for this undeniable difference in lifespan a consequence of the matriarchy? No, of course not. Does it mean society should try to account for this disadvantage somehow?

Possibly and that segues into my next point, that intersectional disadvantages must be addressed individually, it's not a competition to see who is the most disadvantaged. But suppose we had that competition and by some miracle it's not an endless shit-fight and we actually decide a victor, now what? What have we achieved? Absolutely fucking nothing.

Alright are there any other gender theory based definitions of a patriarchy you want me to address?

 

[The Grey Man]

Feminism is misogyny in denial, a curious case of the phenomenon of psychological projection. Feminists demand 'equality' for men and women, but they don't say what they mean by this. Many of them don't even seem to realize that, if men and women were equal in every way, there would be no men or women, just asexual humanoid units (this is another application of the identity of indiscernibles), and, consequently, if the demand for equality is to have any meaning at all, it must be specified in what sense the equality of men and women is both possible and desirable. Of course, they know in what sense they desire equality, but they do not know that they know, for if they did, they would realize that their hatred of the patriarchy, which 'disempowers' women, is a hollow pretense for their hatred of woman as such. For what they desire is not that the equal (and infinite) value of both women and men be reflected in the structure of society, but that women and men participate in this structure in the same way, and not just any way, but the masculine way. What they refuse to admit is that the traditionally feminine virtue of obedience is a actually good thing, and not just a sign of weakness or oppression (any more than Mary's 'Amen' to the archangel Gabriel at the Annunciation was coerced—it was on the contrary a perfectly free act). Their hatred of patriarchy is, ultimately, rooted in their hatred of hierarchy in general, which is in turn due to the peculiarly anti-traditional mindset of modern man.

(I am aware that there are certain people, less sane than old-school feminists, who think that reducing the human person to "asexual humanoid units" is a good thing, but these have different, more diabolical motives.)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

"Diabolical motives" *grabs popcorn*

It's interesting how anti feminism and religious fanaticism go together.

 

[Cognisant]

(sprays with a squirt-gun)

(firmly) No!

 

[The Grey Man]

It's interesting how anti feminism and religious fanaticism go together.

It's no mere coincidence, but a consequence of feminism's hostility to traditional religion and especially its teachings concerning sexuality. It would be more surprising if religious fanatics like me were friendly towards feminism, surely.

As for the promotion of arbitrarily 'identifying' as a different gender (or perhaps no gender at all), you smile when I say that it is "diabolical", as if I were exaggerating its maleficence, but I am not using the term in the crude sense that anything that is bad or frustrates us (like waiting in line) is 'diabolical.' Rather do I use it in the precise sense that I have attempted to explain in another thread, namely that LGBT ideology does not merely deny a truth of the spiritual order, but counterfeits it by substituting, for the transcendence of the masculine-feminine polarity, its destruction by pills and surgeries. This is not just a harmless lifestyle choice; there is more at work here. Feminism is, in the last analysis, rooted in the Fall (this is what makes it, like all the '-isms' begotten by hoary egoism, seem so banal when it seen for what it is), but the enemy has recently changed tactics.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Its all outdated. Nothing of patriarchy, religion, or past thought of any type, matriarrchy included works for modern life today. Nothing. We are in a new era. Don't look to the past for ideas to try to fit with today, you must seek new thought now, or you will be crumbled away in rigid outdated ideas that fail. May have been popular in some previous age, but what you've learned just doesn't work now.

People are individuals and whole unto themselves. and each one has a right to be free and not be repressed into a system that uses them for reproducing or being a servant as in the convenience of marriage.
Just divide your pie of time up each day and learn to be self sufficient within that. Be happy for that, as you are guaranteed nothing, except what you yourself can manage. Slow down, watch a carrot grow, appreciate your simple breathing no expectations outside of what you yourself can create. Ask what does the world need most right now, and create that. Time to be generous with what you do in your own light. If each person did that, there would be no reason for any system. God would approve of all religions and walks of life because he does gift the right to be individuals, simplicity and appreciation, one day at a time. Seek to fill a needed empty spot with gratitude for yourself, or for your life up to now, or for others if you feel empty within.

 

[Cognisant]

Patriarchies, by the standard definition of a system of society/governance in which non-males are effectively second class or worse, do exist in the modern world.
E.g. Dubai.

So long as actual Patriarchies exist we need the words to talk about them, and even if they were completely abolished we still need those words because those words are our first line of defense. If we don't have words for tyranny and oppression we can't talk about it and if we can't talk about it how are we to organize ourselves to oppose it? Indeed people think with words, arguably the best reason to learn other languages is because having an expanded vocabulary expands your ability to think. If you didn't know what a "tyrant" was how would you recognize tyranny? Racism, sexism, same thing, these words aren't just labels they're concepts and if people didn't have the concept of a patriarchy how would they know they're in one?

Why do you think those Islamic patriarchal societies are so adamant that women shouldn't be educated or when they are that their education should be heavily censored? Because they know this, its the same reason why the Fascists and the Communists burned books and tried to erase any history that didn't support their narrative.

Speaking of censorship...

Its all outdated. Nothing of patriarchy, religion, or past thought works for modern life today. Nothing. We are in a new era. Don't look to the past for ideas to try to fit with today, you must seek new thought now, or you will be crumbled away in rigid outdated ideas. Obsolete ideas that may have been popular in some previous age, but don't work at all now.

Oh wow we're just going full 1984 aren't we? Forget absolutely everything, we won't need any of that old world thinking in our glorious new world utopia.

People are individuals and whole unto themselves. and each one has a right to be free and not be repressed into a system that uses them for reproducing or being a maid or servant as in the convenience of marriage. Just divide your pie of time up each day and learn to be self sufficient within that. Be happy for that, as you are guaranteed nothing, except what you yourself can manage. Slow down, watch a carrot grow, appreciate your simple breathing no expectations outside of what you yourself can create. You give to the world, be the gifter that is what the world needs most right now, time to be generous with what you do in your own light. If each person did that, there would be no reason for any other system. And God would approve of all religions and walks of life because he is doing the same, gifting the right to be individuals, and simplicity and appreciation, one day at a time. Seek to fill a needed spot, if that is within you, start there.

Fuck you pay me. At least the Communists want to work together, you just want me to work because... that's the categorical imperative of a man? That's it isn't it? I deconstruct your misinterpretation of "patriarchy" (re-interpreting words is another form of censorship) and now you want to wipe the slate clean and start again because I just pulled up the foundations of your matriarchy.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Over reaction there! Oh, are you opposing it? Ok then, talk about it, all is well.


“Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.”
― George Orwell, 1984

It may exist, but oppression is never good. You are an individual, as am I, nobody wants to be subservient - self actualization is better.
But in todays world, we are often lost to the pasts broken old ideas. No utopia or new world has actually been set up yet so we are kind of between old and new in limbo. Have pity on us all.
Therefore, talking about it is one thing, but creating something better is another. It will probably be a hundred years before changes happen for Dubai, it comes slowly.

 

[Cognisant]

Over reaction there! They may exist, but how well do they work? Not well at all.

Baseless presumption, they don't work well as opposed to what?

I deconstructed the intersectional definition of a patriarchy because it doesn't work well (to put it mildly) and I offer an an alternative "intersectional disadvantage" which is much more specific and far less likely to put people on the defensive.

By all means I invite you to do the same, create terminology, add blocks to the conceptual LEGO set.

And no that was not an over-reaction, if you tried that intellectual vandalism in person my response would have been a fist, I've never actually met a fascist and I'd be dammed if I miss the opportunity.

You are an individual, as am I, nobody wants to be subservient, thank you.

Subservient to what? If you have a point, make it, don't just insinuate.

 

[birdsnestfern]

I got caught up in something here, but nobody is a fascist. Sorry to get involved with this thread at all. Peace.

 

[Black Rose]

in·ter·sec·tion·al·i·ty
/ˌin(t)ərˌsekSHəˈnalədē/

noun

1. the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.
   "through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us"

Not all women are disadvantaged in comparison to men.

But on average women are abused more by men than men are by women.

Because women need protection or they get eaten by predators and the males fail to pass on their genes. That is why women select the strongest men on average.

But this is in the context of the tribe. Men as a group protect the women in the wild.

Raids happen where men are killed and women are taken, hostage. (for breading purposes men are useless captives in raids except for slaves)

In the modern world, the tribe has been atomized but men still feel the need to protect on instinct. And women on instinct feel the need for protection and select males based on this.

Males must provide the resources in the wild and women care for the pregnant.

Not today: Women are expected to work when pregnant - The neoliberal system. Because there are no predators in society as in the jungle / savanna. Women are safe.

The only disadvantage now is money, resources have shifted to money.

Poverty is now the threat. Women do not like poor men or men who will become poor. The children will not survive is their instinct.