Ask Your Question today
I'm trying to develop an opinion on feminism. At first, I thought it was all about men and women being equals, which I (as a guy BTW) definitely support. However, given all the passionate debating on the subject, I think there's more to it than just that. What do you think about feminism?
You don't have to look further than the name to figure out that it's not precisely about equality. At best, it's about making sure than women (only) are not less than equal, which is still a decent goal. But at worst it's nothing but a thin disguise for women who hate anyone with a Y chromosome (including transsexuals).
Feminism also describes are large body of sociological theories of variable quality. In short, "feminism" means too many things to be a useful term anymore.
Feminism is pretty similar in action to white pride movements.
You have people becoming overly attached with their own group identity while criticizing the other (males), latching onto obscure conspiracy theories (patriarchy), an obsession with criticizing the crimes of the other group (rape), portraying all of the other group as being monstrously inclined to commit those crimes (all men are rapists), etc.
Just as a white power group becomes attached to a white identity and denigrates all other groups and portrays all black people as savages unable to overcome inbuilt urges for criminal activity. The parallels are really endless.
This is the path most majority rights groups go down unfortunately. As an example ever heard a feminist complain that men on average receive far higher criminal sentences than females? Even with similar criminal history men receive higher sentences and make parole less. A true gender equality movement would complain vociferously against this measurable and clear injustice. Yet there are no protests, no action groups, nothing from feminists on this issue.
Wikipedia: patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children.
Not sure how that's an "obscure conspiracy theory". Nothing about it seems completely incorrect to me, and it's certainly very obviously true in lots of cultures outside the liberal West and in the very recent past even in the liberal West. I think a lot of people use patriarchy is as a very loaded term, and don't realise what it really means. It's actually a very broad and non-specific term, and in no way does it suggest some conspiracy that individual men tactically organise themselves so as to oppress women since patriarchy can evolve organically.
It is a conspiracy theory the way feminists use it. The word does have the legitimate traditional meaning you gave however it is in no way used in that context by feminists. Here is a feminist quote that gives an idea about what I am talking about:
"Keeping males and females from telling the truth about what happens to them in families is one way patriarchal culture is maintained. A great many individuals enforce an unspoken rule in the culture as a whole that demands we keep the secrets of patriarchy, thereby protecting the rule of the father. This rule of silence is upheld when the culture refuses everyone easy access even to the word “patriarchy”. Most children do not learn what to call this system of institutionalized gender roles, so rarely do we name it in everyday speech. This silence promotes denial. And how can we organize to challenge and change a system that cannot be named?"
- Bell Hooks, ‘Understanding Patriarchy’
Unspoken rule, secrets, rule of silence, hell I don't even know if I need to describe why this is a conspiracy theory. These ideas of an all powerful hidden entity of patriarchy are common in feminist discourse and pretty darn similar to the pesky Jews behind everything in white power movements.
There are reasons behind why things happen, good reasons and bad reasons. Patriarchy as some hidden entity that has caused everything is a very poor way of explaining things. As an example when Pakistan had a female leader it did no suddenly become a bastion of women's rights it remained quite the opposite but it also made no sense to call it a patriarchy.
Women and men have traditionally been cast in generally unfortunate gender roles due to the way productive power was distributed in a society in which women were expected to get pregnant often, could die from it, and were given the duty to bring up more workers. There is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain why things have happened the way they have.
Finally to quote you:
"It's actually a very broad and non-specific term"
That is how most conspiracies are. White power movements will seldom tell you which Jewish people apparently control everything just as Feminists won't tell you which men are behind it all. Yet apparently the conspiracy is behind nearly everything. The problems people face are human ones and abstract all controlling powers are not needed to explain them.
I've never heard that Bell Hooks quote, but I think you are interpreting it wrongly. Notice that Hooks says that the *culture* (i.e. objetive society) demands that patriarchy is kept a secret; she doesn't say that individuals or men as a group are demanding anything. The word "individual" is only use once, and that is to denote the enforcing of social rules rather than the creating of them. So you can see that the idea of a group of individual men sitting down to conspire about how to repress women isn't what Hooks is talking about at all; at most, she is talking about how both men and women enforce pre-existing social rules.
Phrases like "rules of secrecy" might be common tropes of conspiracy theories, but you can't use that alone as a way to classify something as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory must be a theory for which there isn't convincing evidence or logical reasoning to support it. I hope I've shown to you how the idea of patriarchy does not fit that definition.
Again, broadness and lack of specificity may be a trope of conspiracy theories but that doesn't make anything that lacks specificity a conspiracy.
As for your side-notes: I think it makes perfect sense to call Pakistan a patriarchy even a woman has led it. Would you say that America is not led by white people just because a black man is President? The bankers, the other polticians, the political theorists, the business men, are predominantly still white so America is still led by white people. Thus Pakistan can still be led by men even with a woman as the political leader. It's massively reductionist to say that a culture can no longer be described as male-dominated just because one woman has one high-up job.
We need theories to understand society, and just because a theory like patriarchy appears nebulous does not make it a conspiracy theory. Understanding what patriarchy is requires understanding important questions in wider sociology outside of the feminist paradigm, like ontology and objectivism. Without that understanding, understanding what patriarchy is in any great depth becomes like understanding tides without knowing what gravity is.
EDIT: Oh, and I apologise to both you and the OP for all the notifications. I'm using my phone which makes typing a lot at once very difficult, so I had to make a lot of edits as I went along.
Let us look at what you stated:
"A conspiracy theory must be a theory for which there isn't convincing evidence or logical reasoning to support it."
Let's look at some quotes about patriarchy and see if there is convincing evidence or logical reasoning to support it.
"Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." — Andrea Dworkin
*Please show convincing evidence that all men are inevitably going to rape or exploit women.
"man’s violent capture and rape of the female led
first to the establishment of a rudimentary mate-protectorate and then sometimes later to the full-blown male solidification of power, the patriarchy”
Susan Brownmiller
*Please show convincing evidence that rape was the starting point for human relationships through time.
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
Sheila Jeffreys.
*Please show convincing evidence that all heterosexual sex resulting in a female orgasm is collaboration with male domination.
"Capitalist and patriarchal conditions create the sexual needs of men and the ways in which women fulfill them"
Sheila Jeffreys
*Please show convincing evidence that the human sex drive is in no way biological but wholly dependent on a patriarchy combined with capitalism.
There is more but if you could just do those ones that would be a good start to showing this Patriarchy is not a conspiracy theory.
On your side notes:
"I think it makes perfect sense to call Pakistan a patriarchy even a woman has led it."
This is answered by the definition you gave earlier that Pakistan, though a terrible place for women, when it had a female leader did not meet:
"Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children."
If you give an absolute definition do not be surprised if people want absolute supporting evidence.
P.S. No worries about that. If you want to take this to email if that would be easier just let me know.
Firstly, this round of quotes you give aren't of feminists explaining what patriarchy is. They're of feminist writers explaining what they believe the consequences of patriarchy are or will be, which is not the same thing. Not everyone who believes in patriarchy believes in what Dworkin thinks the consequences of it are, for example. I certainly don't, and I think most feminists would also reject that quote.
As I said at the start, patriarchy is a very non-specific theory. Presenting me with specific invalid thoughts from specific writers about patriarchy isn't enough to make the whole broad idea of patriarchy invalid - it merely makes the one specific bit of the theory that was being referred to invalid. I cannot in any good faith defend those quotes from Dworkin or from Brownmiller or the first one from Jefferys because I find them to be invalid. However, that doesn't make the whole theory patriarchy a conspiracy theory.
I can defend the second Jefferys quote, because I do find it to be logical. It does not seem to me to be farfetched that any aspect of human interaction including sexual desire is closed to the influence of society. In that quote Jefferys does not say that biology plays no part, if even if she did she doesn't seem to be referring to the concept of sexual attraction between men and women but the way that sexual attraction is expressed, for example in terms of dominance and submission.
I'm kind of like you. I've had internal conflicts though about supporting it, just because of the many factions within it. Keep in mind this all comes from what I've seen on Tumblr. I mean I support gender equality, but it seems that they just completely ignore men and focus on women. I mean it's too sexist for a cause that's supposed to be about both genders.
I've heard plenty of women man-hate. Calling all men pigs and perverts, then attack anyone who dares to slut shame. As if there's a difference between calling a man a pig for having a lot of sex, and calling a girl a slut for doing the same. I think there views of sex are too one-sided, they only see things from their perspective and don't take into account anyone else. However, this isn't everyone of them though, just some I've seen.
Some feminists just don't stop though, they just all assume that men are the devil. They focus on the bad in this world and blame it on men. And it bothers me, because it's like they're pretty much going against there cause for equality. Furthermore, I feel like some of them just look for stuff to complain about, but that's just a personal feeling that I have no proof for.
I've seen some good feminist that see the troubles that gender stereotype have caused for everyone, not just women. Like they can sympathize that men also have it bad. And in moments like that I feel like I can support the cause, or rather I like the person so I'll support them.
But like I said the actual cause itself has too many factions for me to support. It's kind of like how when you see a good republican, not trying to offend anyone, it's like you want to support him, but not the party. That's kind of like how I feel with feminism. Thus, I like to call myself an egalitarian who sympathizes with the feminist plight. I want equality but I don't want to be a feminist.
Feminism/feminists are cult-like, if I am honest.
They believe in ridiculous theories even when simply looking around could prove them wrong (patriarchy).
The group is just a dead end, it fills your head with lies or half truths, then makes that end a hateful one.
I'm not going to say "all" feminists hate men, however I will say that all feminists are incredibly insensitive and uncaring of men, which is shown by how they protest men's rights speeches, going so far as to break the law and attempt to restrict freedoms to do so.
This is not a group for equality, it is a group for supremacy. They want to be given the choices of men and women, say it's sexist when the responsibilities of men are given go them along with the choices (equality), claim "gender stereotypes" or sexism when they are told they should take responsibility, all while detesting the idea of men getting the same choices as women.
That is something that annoys me. They do get the same choices as men, yet men have multiple choices that they don't get that women do, such as abortion. Ofcourse, they wouldn't have a say in the actual abortion, however financial abortion where both get the choice over their role, if a role at all, is completely able to happen, where men and women get the same choices without being able to force the other gender in to parenthood.
Who says this is wrong, though? Feminists.
I also have to say, the group is just filled with the most mind numbing people I have ever come across. It's not even that they are wrong, I see intelligence as being able to progress when given undeniable information, not simply coming to a wrong conclusion, but being able to adapt when given a more rational one. These people do not have that.
I would add more, however I have to go.
Feminism is supposed to be about equality. Nowadays men and women have the same rights, however gender stereotypes still exist, like that cooking and cleaning are just women's jobs, which I dislike. I don't agree with "feminists" who demonize all men though, it's not fair to the men who are not rapists, pedos, murderers, abusers, etc. Also, some women are evil yet "feminists" ignore that. I put it in quotation marks because they're doing it wrong. Just stating my opinion.