Patriarchy: How Everyone Suffers

I’m fond of using the word Patriarchy (especially capitalized). Lots of people are. It’s a catchy, encompassing term. The problem is, Normal People tend to associate it (and thus its most ardent users, feminists) with crackpot conspiracy theory.

Can we take a minute and dissect this concept?

A few definitions of Patriarchy I have stumbled across recently are:

from Wikipedia: “Patriarchy is a social system in which the males, especially fathers, have central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and property. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.”

from blogger ballgame: “Patriarchy is a system of rigid rules and expectations around gender that unjustly overvalues certain qualities and undervalues others. Typically, dominant males are overvalued, and the average woman’s macropolitical agency is significantly constrained. (Patriarchal societies also frequently devalue the average man’s emotional value and possibly his micropolitical agency, though I don’t know whether this is necessarily a hallmark of patriarchy like devaluing the average woman’s political agency is).”

from Kamla Bhasin: “[The concept of Patriarchy] is a tool to help us understand our realities.” She continues, “The word patriarchy literally means the rule of the father or the the ‘patriarch’, and originally it was used to describe a specific type of ‘male-dominated family’– the large household of the patriarch which included women, junior men, children, slaves and domestic servants all under the rule of this dominant male. Now it is used more generally to refer to male domination, to the power relationships by which men dominate women, and to characterise a system whereby women are kept subordinate in a number of ways. In South Asia, for example, it is called pitrasatta in Hindi, pidarshahi in Urdu and pitratonto in Bangla.” She also adds that Patriarchy assumes different forms in different times, places, and cultures.

(Also, interesting essay here.) 

Parts and conceptual sums of these definitions, among others, have shaped my [working] concept of Patriarchy. I guess I don’t have a simple definition, but this is generally what I mean when I say it…:

Patriarchy is both a system and a way of thinking which holds certain values that benefit some peoples and individuals and necessarily discriminates against others. Although these values and their manifestations vary by culture, location, and time, a general pattern can be identified: value for competition; value for strength, power/authority, and domination; value for role conformity; value for hierarchical structure; value for masculinity. Patriarchy also devalues femininity, weakness, subordination, and deviation. The forms these values take are necessarily shaped and expressed by culture, by which ‘masculinity’, ‘femininity’, gender roles/norms/expectations are defined, and the specific values of a culture in terms of race, age, sexual orientation, etc. Hierarchy within Patriarchy is multifaceted; multiple hierarchies may exist which are interconnected or interdependent and function around concepts not only of gender but also race, age, sexual orientation, and so on.

Thus can it be that “progressive” America (in which women can vote, run for office, work outside the home, have sex with other women, and so on) is a Patriarchal society and “backwards” Afghanistan is a Patriarchal society, as well.

The BBC just had an article on Men’s Rights activists. The reason why I am so irritated by this movement is not because I want to subjugate men, don’t believe in their rights, etc. Obviously not (see my definition of feminism). What is so utterly bothersome is that these proponents are either a) complete ignorant of their victim-agent status within Patriarchy (and sometimes Patriarchy, itself), or b) want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they want all the benefits and privileges of their Western White Wealthy Phallocentric Patriarchy without any of the consequences. Well, I’m sorry people, but if you subscribe to hierarchy (and even if you don’t), you had better know there are drawbacks for those who are not at the top.

Some of those consequences/drawbacks are nicely illustrated by the article. I will go through some of them. Please note the irony of blaming feminism for these “ills upon men” (nevermind their Patriarchal origin).

As described in the article, David Benatar’s new book addresses the various ills of men which include: being conscripted into the army, being victims of violence, losing custody of their children, and taking their own lives.

1. Conscription into the army. Last time I checked, there was a lot of hesitation (confusion?), even disgust, about women joining the army in “the West”. Yes, they can do so in a lot of countries. Yes, publicly they are praised as patriotic for their service. But American women are still not allowed into combat. Hatred of women by the military apparatus, itself, manifests as [tolerated] violence against their own. And the Ideal Soldier will never, ever be recreated as feminine or female in the eyes of the Patriarchy. Fighting for one’s country is a classic Patriarchal value in America and much of Europe, not to mention elsewhere. Blood-letting is considered masculine and unfeminine, and unfeminine women are often portrayed as “butch” and repulsive. But ultimately, allowing for the conscription of women into the army would not reduce Patriarchy, at all: the very purpose of the war machine as a tool of domination is both a manifestation of and means of perpetuating Patriarchy, regardless of whether the fighting puppets have penises or not. (Personally, I don’t think anyone should be conscripted into the army. But I’m radical like that.)

2. Victims of Violence. It’s true that men are more likely to experience and die of violent crime than women (excepting rape).  It’s also true that men are more likely to commit violent crime than women. This probably has little to do with the inherent nature of men or women as more or less violence-prone, and more to do with our socialization within a Patriarchal society. Patriarchy often dictates that men are naturally (and should be) assertive, aggressive, even forceful if that is necessary to get what one wants. Women, on the other hand, should not be aggressive, or are “naturally” more nurturing, passive, and empathetic. Men who display these attributes are labeled emasculated, effeminate, even gay (oh god, not that!) the world over, from the States to Cambodia. Women who are assertive, aggressive, or forceful are abnormal, unnatural– “bitches”, reallly. All this masculine-identified aggression is partly responsible for violence in all forms. This is not to say that women aren’t violent– of course they are, but statistically they are far less likely to be physically violent– perhaps because the Patriarchy has many recourses to put them back in their subordinated place. The other aspect of this is risk-taking; both as perpetrators and victims, men are encouraged to do more risk-taking than women. The leading cause of death for young men is accidents, and more men die of accidents than women, generally. Women are encouraged to adopt “safer” lifestyles than men. They are child-bearers and raisers, after all.

3. Losing custody of the kids. Alas, the Woman as Nurturer motif has finally come back to bite men in the ass. Patriarchy, of course, doesn’t only discriminate against women in its sometimes ironic functioning. Discrimination has long worked in apparent favor of women in this regard: women are Mothers and innate Nurturers; men are (or should be) distant, emotionally-detached Providers. You can’t rightly expect a Provider to properly raise babies, now, can you? But also, the realm of babies and children is a necessarily feminine one, for babies and children are weak, just as women are. This is why women and children need the Protector/Provider male, and why single motherhood equates to child abuse.

4. Suicide. Higher rates of suicide among men can be partly explained by the methods men employ as differentiated from women. Suicidal men statistically resort to more violent means than women, which results in higher rates of success. Although women attempt suicide more often (and have higher rates of self-harm), men actually succeed in killing themselves more often. It has been suggested that men are not only encouraged to seek out more violent means to commit suicide, but also are able to attain those means more easily (such as acquiring and using a gun). Mental illness is a major (if not the major) factor leading to suicide, and men are less likely than women to seek help over mental health issues. This tendency is also founded in normative masculinity: “real men” don’t show weakness, don’t cry, and don’t talk about their feelings. [Interesting side note: the suicide rate is actually higher for women than men in China. Between that and female infanticide, the future sure looks grim for Chinese women.]

Other points mentioned:

5. 90% of prison inmates are male. This ties in with much of the above. Value of male aggression and even violent competition are at the root of this issue, but it should also be pointed out that the majority of prison inmates are people of colour. The systems within the System are not simply based on gender, but privilege or disadvantage is based on a myriad of other factors, as well– including ethnicity and social class. Many styles of Patriarchy love White Wealthy Westerners, hence one reason why you don’t see a whole lot of them in prison. And class is of course derived from our status within the system of capitalism. Let me tell you, Patriarchy loves Capitalism. (Hehe.) They are old friends, although Patriarchy is a lot older. Capitalism has a lot going on that Patriarchy adores: cutthroat competition, domination, winners and losers, and so on. But as a way of life, Capitalism sets up a situation which almost ensures that some groups of people are going to be underrepresented in the upper classes and overrepresented as the bottomfeeders or criminals; Patriarchy helps shape how those groups are defined (as by colour, religion, etc.). As a fortune cookie once told me, “Society prepares the crime; the criminal commits it.” It should have added, “And Patriarchy unfairly molds certain groups of people into the criminal role.” If you’re about to say, “Crime is an individual’s choice,” say no more Dickensian nonsense; crime as an individual choice complete removes both the crime and the individual from the context of culture and thus makes it into a moral dilemma-scenario in a philosophy book. In other words, completely detached from reality.

6. Men are invisible victims. An American web designer in Ohio is setting up a domestic violence shelter for men. I think this is an absolutely pro idea. A lot of people, though, are probably going to laugh their heads off at this. Why? Because MEN HIT WOMEN NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, DUH LOL. Well, that is certainly what Patriarchy wants us to believe. And, more often than not, that is the reality; most perpetrators of violence are men, most survivors and victims women and children. But not all. And an increasing number of women are becoming perpetrators (which, by the way, women have long perpetrated violence against children, no surprise there) as the physical and psychological moorings of Patriarchy continue to shift. Women are Patriarchs, too, after all. Anyhow, this shelter: it directly points to how Patriarchy does not simply function on gender, but is multidimensional. Hence why white middle class American men should think again about their fervent support of Patriarchy, for when they becomes its victims, who is left to turn to? Suddenly the marginalizers have become the marginalized. Men are supposed to be the aggressors, not the victims. Am I being redundant? Is a pattern emerging here?

7. Men’s body image. Pressure and negativity surrounding male body image has grown steadily from an almost-neutral standpoint in the industrial era of “the West”, to a nigh-obsession today. Women have experienced this since…well, who knows when, and that’s not to say male beauty standards have not also been prioritized for a long time. But for modern men, I can see why these changes should come as a shock; they’re not the fair sex, after all– women should be the ones worrying about their appearance, dammit! A man can and should be able to fuck anyone he wants regardless of how he looks, and to be loved by anyone without them caring about his appearance. My, how the times have changed. Vanity and beauty are suddenly no longer so, well, feminine. Does this mean we are now going to admit to the subjectivity of beauty and toss out antiquated “ideals” and norms that control people’s lifestyles and cognitions? Somehow I doubt it…

There are a lot of other points mentioned in the article that should be addressed within a conceptual framework that accounts for Patriarchy. Maybe I’ll get to them later, but I don’t want to bore you… The point is, Patriarchy is shit. It’s not just bad for women. It’s bad for men. It’s bad for black people. It’s bad for Cambodians. It’s bad for Canadians. It’s bad for the elderly. It’s bad for kids. It’s really really bad for young, black, poor single moms, and it’s the least bad for White Wealthy Western males. This is not just about sex. This is not just about colour or class. And no, Men’s Rights Activists, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

“Stop the War on Men…?” (blog post review)

Sometimes I read the National Coalition for Men‘s blog posts, which come from a variety of bloggers, mostly upper middle class white guys. (I know, you’re shocked.) Something interesting was recently posted by Phil Cook, board member of SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments– sounds like a winner, right? Appearances can be deceiving…). According to their website, Phil is also the Executive Director of SAFE (Stop Abuse for Everyone)…? The two organizations would appear to have vastly different approaches to sexual violence, and cater to completely different audiences. It just don’t make no sense. But we’ll save that investigation for another day. For now let’s just analyze Phil’s post, in its entirety.

Phil titled his post “All Men Are Rapists-And They Are Coming After You”… and they are, so get off your couch and do something about it!” It’s a bit confusing, but I think he’s referring to “man-haters” when he says “they” really are coming after you.

“There is a well-orchestrated government-backed effort underway to allow women who participate in any sexual activity with a man to charge him with sexual assault or rape – whenever they choose to do so. Every man, married or dating, is at risk.” Sounds serious. Although, what you’re talking about is falsely accusing someone of rape, and rape is actually falsely reported equally or less than other violent crimes according to the FBI* (also see Anderson & Doherty’s 2008 book). Of course, considering that investigations are overwhelmingly conducted by men, the DAs who decide which cases to take are also mostly male, the definition of rape, itself, was written largely by males, and statistics used by the FBI are compiled for the most part by males…one needs to take “false reports” stats with a rather large grain of salt.

“This unprecedented attack on dating teenage boys and all men began with an April 2011 Department of Education directive. The directive was issued without prior notice or opportunity for public comment: “[I]n order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred).” [bold type is Cook's]  To call the directive an attack is so inaccurate it makes me wonder if he even read it. You can decide for yourself (it’s short), but to summarize, this Dear Colleague Letter basically reiterates some key facts about rape in schools (colleges and universities included) and also the fact that the government is responsible for properly investigating such crimes, as well as for protecting students from those crimes in the first place. Phil tries to assert that the letter was “issued without prior notice”; it would be more accurate to say that the Dept. of Education was responding, albeit belatedly, to the outcry surrounding certain highly publicized cases of rape in public schools (see MSNBC and NPR, for example). But that bit about “preponderance of evidence” is my favourite part: what is preponderance of evidence? Phil thinks it means “it is more likely than not that…violence occurred”. Phil is an idiot, either that or I watched too much Law & Order as a child (thanks Mom). Preponderance of evidence means that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. In other words, the justice system operates on the assumption that a crime did not occur. Maybe Phil has heard the expression “innocent until proven guilty”.

“In October 2011, Caleb Warner was allowed to return to the University of North Dakota after being victimized by the university’s low standard of evidence. The accuser had filed claims of sexual assault with both the University and the municipal police department. Two investigations resulted — the university’s according to the preponderance standard, and the police’s according to the usual “clear and convincing” standard — and they could not have turned out more differently. Warner was found guilty by his university and banned from campus after a swift investigation. Meanwhile local police reviewed the very same evidence, determined that Warner’s accuser was lying, and charged her with filing a false report. Don’t think it could happen to any male you know attending college? Think again.”  I tried to find some decent news reports on this. Not much luck. It’s true that many universities (including the one I attended for undergrad) have a “preponderance” standard, which means you don’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, you just need “enough” evidence (subjective? Uh, yeah.)– but the burden of proof is always, as ever, on the plaintiff, not the defendant. It’s not that rape is never falsely accused, it’s just highly unlikely. Similar to falsely accusing someone of murder: you just don’t see it that much.

“Vice President Joe Biden has launched an active campaign in support of the Department of Education’s new directive. The character Val in the Marilyn French novel, “The Women’s Room,” said, “All men are rapists.” If the definitions are broadened sufficiently, it becomes true.”  Well, yay to that first part (though really, how “active” can a campaign launched by the VP really be?). Said definitions are not even remotely nearing the point where all men can be defined as rapists. But by my personal definition of rape (any unwanted sexual touch), many more men are rapists than the government would ever acknowledge. Many men, themselves, are probably unaware that they’re rapists, because their culturally arranged definition of rape excludes their behavior in favor of things like drawing blood and tearing vaginal tissue. I have a lot to say on that point. Ah, well, another day…

“This might be seen as the somewhat laughable assertions of a radical feminist fringe [hey, that's me!], but the U.S. government is acting on their behalf. It’s no coincidence that the FBI has recently changed its definition of what rape is. The previous definition was in place for eighty years: “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”” Yeah, well, they changed it because that definition is idiotic. “Carnal knowledge”? What the hell does that even mean? Something that subjective and soaked in religious rhetoric need not be used as a standard in crime investigation by the FBI. Also, this definition doesn’t acknowledge those rapes which don’t require force, or during which force wasn’t used. That doesn’t make it less rape-y, by the way.

“The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee has changed that definition to: “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”” [bold type is Cook's]  Obviously I find this definition inadequate. Phil was probably appalled by this definition, too– but because this might have been the part where he realized something he’d done in the past was rape. Oh shit!

“Has she had a drink or two of alcohol or used a drug? Then she’s “incapable of consent” even if she voluntarily became inebriated.”  This is so frightening I don’t know how to begin. So what Phil is admitting, here, is that he thinks consent is implied if a woman has voluntarily become drunk. It’s annoying that he always uses “she”, by the way, as if there’s no such thing as male rape. If any person is intoxicated via any substance or unconscious or otherwise unable to give consent, assuming that you have their consent is wrong. Let’s say you take your friend home after a party and they pass out on the couch, and you decide to grope them because, well, they’re none the wiser, right? Congratulations, you just violated them. Perhaps some day in the future, the FBI will even define what you did as rape. Just think about that next time it crosses your mind to do such a thing.

Los Angeles attorney and NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci says, “Think about what the new definition of “rape” means. Every exploratory “hands-on” teenager in the back seat of a car or on a sofa in the parents’ basement is now at risk of being branded a “rapist”. They kiss. His hand touches (“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part”). She does nothing (“without the consent” means he has the burden to get consent; she doesn’t have to express lack of consent). He stops touching. Too late. The hand committed rape and the only question is whether she will press charges. By changing the definition at the FBI data collection level, all jurisdictions will come under pressure to change their underlying statutes to make the crime fit the Federal definition.” Actually, “the hand” did not commit rape: the person it is attached to did (in this case, the “hands-on” teenager). THIS IS WHY THE ISSUE OF CONSENT IS SO CRUCIAL. What does it mean to assume that you have the right to touch another person without asking them first? Let’s start with something as simple as a hug: you hug someone– a friend of the same sex, we’ll say– without asking first. How do you know they wanted to be hugged? How do you know they wanted to be hugged by you? YOU DON’T. YOU NEED TO ASK FIRST. It is not your body. It is theirs. Touching, however well-intended or “harmless”, should not be assumed to be your right: the first right is a person’s right to autonomous control of their body. Which means that your hug, if it turns out to have been unwanted after all, is now a form of violation. You didn’t have the right to hug them, you just assumed that you had that right. I’m thinking we should do a post about consent. Oh gawd.

“Are you a man? A parent with a son? Scared yet?”  If I do have a son, I sure hope I do an effective job of educating him about human rights, rather than instilling as sense of self-entitlement which might lead him to rape someone.

“You definitely should be. There are powerful mainly hidden forces at work.”  Really, we’re trying to become unhidden, we’re just not that popular.

“In this case, paranoia is not merely justified, it is overdue. There has been no news media coverage of these issues. Surprised? Shocked? Now that you are informed what action will you take to change these federal initiatives? Will you just sit back and hope that a false charge of rape or sexual assault will not happen to any males you know? Don’t count on it.”  Certainly doesn’t seem like Phil is going to “sit back and hope”… Good for him, I like a challenge. I know we “feminazis”, as the NCFM’s website is often fond of labeling proponents of human rights, really do just take all the fun out of things (“NO you can have sex with her while she’s unconscious!” “NO your sexual harrassment is not taken as adoring advances!”), but we wouldn’t have our work cut out for us without people like Phil.

Also, just some icing for that cake, I found some worthwhile comments on the original NMFC post:

” We know all this Phil !! We know that is geting worst . I have an Idea . Start seling T- Shirts , ” Im not a Rapest ” !! In the San Diego area first . To see the reaction of the people . Sarcasm works best !!! Trust me . Put the feminatzis to shame . They hate that !!! Just doit it !!”  - from “Ivan”

 ” Good Idea on the T- Shirts Ivan !!!
Harry , Happy New Year and God Bless ,to you and your team . Thank you and stay strong Brother . A lot of people are watching you guys . I looked you up in Google Maps , your San Diego office is kind of small . You have to go national Harry ,get funding from the State !! I wish I were a rich man but .. I will buy you a nice bilding and lawyers and a Newspaper to fight the Feminatzi media . Keep on pushing Harry . There are millions of rich men in USA who have been screwed by the Family Courts . Contact those people . Alek Baldawen the actor ,comes to mind. Did you know that Rupert Murdoch is on Twitter now. Yes, he twittes . Rupert can do a lot for Mens Rights ! Just do it Harry , just try to contact Rupert. You will be suprised . A very , very nice letter to a very powerful man will do the trick !!!!
 Cheers from Canada guys and girls .”  - from “Antony”

You know what this reminds me of? If you guessed ‘white supremacism’, you’d be correct. Maybe some (most?) of you think I’m wasting my time reading this garbage from people whose IQ is similar to their shoe size… But worse and more misguided people than this have lobbied the government, successfully passed legislation, run for office, become President of the Most Powerful Nation in the World, and so forth. It’s best to keep your eye on these things. (After all, Alec Baldwin might decide to fund them.) >_<