Among the absolute bollocks I've read recently, this report stands out:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/swanson-buehner-new-gonorrhea-strain-sent-god-punish-america-single-women-have-no-rights
And among the bollocks contained there, the threat to patriarchy stands out.
Well, good.
We don't need patriarchy, it can fade into history now.
Patriarchy means "rule of men". It had a good run, it's done. Bye.
In no universe was it ever necessary, and in plenty of cultures it never existed, and they managed just fine.
So, the question is, why did it become so powerful?
Well, it was essentially an institution based on "might is right". It was a right to power seized by those with the hardest hitting fists, and once established as "normal", habitual, its supporters, of both genders, kept it in place with threats of violence against anyone who opposed it. Not all of these threats of violence were in human form. Organized religion included threats of violence from God, if the established order was so much as queried.
To sugar-coat it, these religions then demanded that men protect women. And everyone went along with this.
If you think that's too simplistic, prove me wrong.
So, a society where women are told they are property, have no rights, must do as men tell them, but they are protected. From what? Oh, from other men. Which wouldn't be necessary if.......but I'm making too much sense here. Let's look at this daft idea.
Men want a weak vulnerable thing to protect.
Oh wow! They have nurturing instincts.
Really? Closer to the truth, historically, is that many men want a weak vulnerable thing to order about, dominate, shout at, belittle, abuse and assault.
The actual view for a long time was that women were not just physically weaker than men, but mentally inferior. If you have any doubt as to all of this, I urge you to read IN FULL this report:
http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/fall02/historical_perspectives.pdf
What patriarchy actually means, remember, is the rule of men.
I have begun to believe that patriarchy is based on men's fear about their own redundancy. It may be hard-wired. The fear, not the patriarchy. In the case of many mammals you are either the dominant male in the group, or you are outcast or have fewer chances to mate. Could that be why men are so obsessed with status, and older men so resist admitting their growing infirmity? Women can generally get along without men better than men can do without women. For the record some of my best friends are men.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely adore men, but I think you are right. If you mention the idea that "life is female" even the best ones look uncomfortable. So, yes, it could be insecurity. I think for the longest time good men lived within patriarchy honestly believing they were there for our good. But when pinned down and questioned, they could never really quite justify it. And so the wiser ones made it possible for the change to equality, but we've a way to go yet.
Delete