August 8, 2006
The feminism is a secular religion with its own high priestesses, dogmas, and initiation rituals. Its creation myth holds that on the first day Goddess created Eve, and all was right with the world. But that idyllic state was shattered when first patriarch Adam stumbled into the Garden, pounded on the table, and demanded his apple.
Simply put, the word “patriarchy” denotes male leadership. By that definition, the United States is a patriarchal society.
—–
Then Gloria Steinem and her ilk came along. They co-opted the word patriarchy, did an ideological shake-and-bake, and stamped it “Hazardous to Women.” Those same men who years before had returned to our shores as war heroes were now branded as bellicose ogres.
The feminist jihad then indicted the entire male species for Crimes against Womankind. The never-ending litany of grievances is like one of those Whack-a-Mole games at the county fair — as soon as one myth is squelched, another pops up. Here are just a few:
Roberts has a point. The “Patriarchy” often is nothing more than a catch-all scapegoat. No matter what the problem or its real cause, many feminists resort to blaming the “Patriarchy” (i.e. males) for every problem. This lack of responsibility on the part of feminists is at odds with their views about social equality. How can they be considered “equal” if every problem they have or they cause is routinely blamed on males? If women bear no social or personal responsibility, then it would appear that feminism’s goal is more about shifting power rather than balancing it.
No matter what the problem or its real cause, many feminists resort to blaming the “Patriarchy” (i.e. males) for every problem.
You are misunderstanding the term “patriarchy.” Patriarchy does not mean males. It is simply a term (not one I generally use) that refers to a set of pervasive cultural norms and assumptions that demean women and often privilege men. However, most any feminist worth her salt will admit that individual women, as well as individual men, often act in ways that support or further these cultural norms and assumptions. Any feminist worth her salt will also concern herself (or himself) with the ways in which “patriarchy” hurts and limits men.
The goal is a fairer world for everyone. It’s too bad that so many people view it as a zero-sum game of males vs. females, when it doesn’t need to be.
The term literally means a society ruled or governed by males. Anything other than that description was added later to imply that such a society is inherently biased, wrong and unequal, regardless of how the social structure came into existence. Feminist implications are clear: males bear sole responsibility societal ills. That you mentioned women supporting the “Patriarchy” only as individuals demonstrates my point. That exclusion creates the zero-sum game you mentioned. I am merely pointing it out.
Well, men only support the “patriarchy” as individuals too. Plenty of individual men do not.
And yeah, society is to a great extent ruled or governed by men. Certainly my society in the U.S. is — with men holding the vast majority of elected offices at the national level, and also at the state level, as well holding the majority of the most powerful positions in the media and business worlds. This is not to say that men as a class are to blame for this state of affairs, but it is inherently problematic when an entire class of society has no share in governing society.
Feminists love men, marry men, date men, and work with men. I’m sorry but critiquing privileges men enjoy at the expense of women is an egalitarian philosophy, not an anti-male one.
Toy soldier, I honestly think you don’t understand feminism at all. That’s not a slam against you — I just think you should learn a little more about where feminists are coming from before you slam the entire notion of women’s equality.
I’m sorry that should have read “but it is inherently problematic when an entire class of society is vastly underrepresented in governing society.” And certainly, until quite recently, women were almost wholly excluded from governing society, or even sharing in the government of their own family units!
I live in the U.S. as well. I do not think it is fair to say that women unnderrepresented in our governing society. No one is under any obligation to vote for women or vote for men because it would make things “equal.” Voting for anyone one such a “principle” defeats the purpose of voting in the first place. People should be allowed to vote for whoever they want for whatever reason.
Toy soldier, I honestly think you don’t understand feminism at all. That’s not a slam against you — I just think you should learn a little more about where feminists are coming from before you slam the entire notion of women’s equality.
Failure to agree with a position does not mean one lacks an understanding of it. Likewise, criticizing feminism casts no reflection on my opinions about women’s equality, particularly when the criticism is that feminism and feminists do not practice said equal treatment.
Failure to agree with a position does not mean one lacks an understanding of it.
But mischaracterizing it does.
Mr. Soldier, if you believe that women’s freedom, equality of opportunity, and dignity are a crucial priority (along with whatever other interests you may have in men’s equality, children’s rights, etc.), then I am happy to call you a feminist and welcome you into the fold!
But mischaracterizing it does.
It is not mischaracterization to state what one sees.
And I would prefer not being called a feminist because I do not like labels and feminism counters my concern for men’s and children’s rights.