Patriarchy theory destroyed in 1 minute

[Donnadogsoth]

Very simply, if men rule the world, and ruling the world is a good thing, why are they stupid enough to cede this power to women?

 

If you were an all-powerful patriarch, living it up on the backs of women, why would you give up your power to women, why would you be that stupid?

 

If you were that stupid, why do you have such power in the first place?  How could you have acquired such power if you were that stupid?  Would your power not have been taken from you in short order by smarter people than yourself?

[shirgall]

Very simply, if men rule the world, and ruling the world is a good thing, why are they stupid enough to cede this power to women?

 

If you were an all-powerful patriarch, living it up on the backs of women, why would you give up your power to women, why would you be that stupid?

 

Sexual attraction temporarily drops IQ five or more points.

 

In the meantime women will always find a way to have a conflict where there's a victor and they can therefore identify appropriate breeding stock.

 

Until socialism evenly allocates sexual availability to sexual desire, it will always be unfair and unbalanced.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Gender roles have been socially enforced by everyone. The only reason people call it a "patriarchy" is because they consider the position of men historically to be favorable and therefore assume that it was the men manipulating things.

 

However, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of men that wanted to be stay-at-home-dads, and definitely plenty who didn't want to fight in wars. There were many that wanted to be effeminate, be emotionally expressive, and so forth... but it was socially unacceptable. So they had to "man up" and do what ever man was expected to do for society and their families. This hardly seems like control, they're in the same boat as women with merely different expected gender roles. I admit that gender roles shouldn't be so restrictive, but it's hardly the fault of any specific sex.

[Mister Mister]

Gender roles have been socially enforced by everyone. The only reason people call it a "patriarchy" is because they consider the position of men historically to be favorable and therefore assume that it was the men manipulating things.

 

However, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of men that wanted to be stay-at-home-dads, and definitely plenty who didn't want to fight in wars. There were many that wanted to be effeminate, be emotionally expressive, and so forth... but it was socially unacceptable. So they had to "man up" and do what ever man was expected to do for society and their families. This hardly seems like control, they're in the same boat as women with merely different expected gender roles. I admit that gender roles shouldn't be so restrictive, but it's hardly the fault of any specific sex.

Some of that is true, but it's very difficult to say how much of "gender roles" are socially enforced, and how much they are biological, and how much they adapt to economics.  We were only able to relax gender roles in the 20th century, because the society had accumulated enough wealth and capital so that it didn't require as much labor to run a household, and jobs moved from hard labor and manufacturing, to services, where women could better compete.

[violet]

I think there's fundamental misunderstanding of what patriarchy is. It's not about men ruling over women. It's about husbands/fathers being in leadership roles within families. A random man would not have power over a random woman in a patriarchal system. The patriarchs were chosen by their wives to be husbands and typically fathers.

 

Patriarchy is part of the Christian system, which I would consider foundational to Western civilization. I think it still exists to some degree, but it's largely been dissolved. There is active hostility towards the notion of gender roles and traditional marriage because it interferes with the liberal ideal of autonomy.

[dsayers]

I think there's fundamental misunderstanding of what patriarchy is. It's not about men ruling over women. It's about husbands/fathers being in leadership roles within families.

This is the problem with labels. There are people that feel both ways. Some who might even go so far as to feel both ways, as if men in leadership roles is an extension of that traditional family structure.

[shirgall]

Approximately 80% of household spending is distaff-controlled.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I think there's fundamental misunderstanding of what patriarchy is. It's not about men ruling over women. It's about husbands/fathers being in leadership roles within families. A random man would not have power over a random woman in a patriarchal system. The patriarchs were chosen by their wives to be husbands and typically fathers.

For most of history "fathers" had little to do with raising children or running family life. It's only in recent centuries that the nuclear family even existed. Through most of the preceding centuries men largely lived separate lives from their wives and children.

 

"The historical family, it turns out, cannot remotely be termed a “patriarchy” until modern times. It is in fact a gynarchy, composed of the grandmother, mother, aunts, unmarried daughters, female servants, midwives, neighbors called “gossips” who acted as substitute mothers, plus the children.15 Fathers in traditional families may sometimes eat and sleep within the gynarchy, but they do not determine its emotional atmosphere, nor do they in any way attempt to raise the children. To avoid experiencing their own domination and abuse during childhood by females, men throughout history have instead set up androcentric political and religious spheres for male-only group-fantasy activities, contributing to the family gynarchy only some sustenance, periodic temper tantrums and occasional sexual service.

...

The gynarchy ruled supreme in early homes. In Byzantium, women had separate spheres with strict exclusion of men from the family, where “men live in light and brightness, the palaestra; women live in the gynaecaeum, enclosed, secluded.”38 This was even true of supposedly patriarchal Chinese families. The Chinese gynarchy was described by visitors as living in “women’s apartments behind the high walls of their husbands’ compounds,” dominated by women who “are reputed to terrorize the men of their households and their neighbors with their fierce tempers, searing tongues, and indomitable wills…When father and son do work together, they have nothing to say, and even at home they speak only when there is business to discuss. [Otherwise] they mutually avoid each other.”39 Likewise, in Indonesian families, “fathers are simply not present very much…the woman has more authority, influence and responsibility than her husband…”40 The examples can easily be extended around the world and into the Middle Ages"

http://psychohistory.com/books/the-emotional-life-of-nations/chapter-8-the-evolution-of-childrearing/