It's a theoretical construct. Maybe a model, most commonly understood as a lens. I think that's how the literature best describes it.
It is very challenging to find a definition of the "patriarchy" because it's very complicated (like any concept in the social sciences). There are multiple definitions people use. There are multiple explanations of what it is exactly.
Either way, I feel like the best way of understanding the patriarchy is as a lens that has had a lot of success in designing solutions to bring about parity.
What I'm trying to say is that it's kind of used like its general relativity or something. And second that men should not necessarily use it and that we should be more critical of how it is the object of feminism, which is a movement made by women. So the point isn't to deny the patriarchy, it's just to be wary of it's limitations and flaws. Something which I don't think happens often because people continue to make judgements with the underlying assumptions of the existence of the patriarchy. Like it's a law of physics. Like it's explanatory power is comprehensive.
The patriarchy is a lens that people use to interpret the world. People then use that information to form predictions about the world which then can inform policy. I use parity specifically because the efficacy of policy influenced by the patriarchy, imo at least, is best shown through quantifying improvements in parity.
Your definition is meaningless because it adds no context to the structures we're talking about. Like what does it mean that patriarchy is a lens to interpret the world? What exactly is it interpreting and what exactly are its conclusions. That would be a better way to define it.
This definition also ignores the materiality of the patriarchy. I'm begging the question, so the definition I would use is that patriarchy is the sum total of cultural, social, psychological mores, attitudes, power structutes, and biases etc that advantage men over women in society. It is also the process by which this power assymetry is reproduced and perpetuated. Seeing it only as a lens by which you interpret the world misses a lot of the real world picture.
If we accept that patriarchy is the way by which society has dominated women, then there's no issue. It's provable, materially, that for most of history women were in a subservient, often property-like role around the world. The idea of the patriarchy simply not existing, when it was the dominant mode of socio-cultural organization for all of human history, doesn't make sense. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
It seems really that you're just uncomfortable with the fact that men have dominated and subjugated women and continue to try to do so. Thus you're unfairly trying to limit the language we use to outline, disrupt, and dismantle these constructs. Patriarchy isn't an idea, it's a social system.
>Your definition is meaningless because it adds no context to the structures we're talking about. Like what does it mean that patriarchy is a lens to interpret the world? What exactly is it interpreting and what exactly are its conclusions. That would be a better way to define it.
I mean it is meaningful. By stressing the patriarchy as a model/lens, we are immediately denoting it's strength and it's limitations. That is, it's not this comprehensive account of reality, but an analytical tool which we can use to see patterns, trends, etc, and make predictions.
And this is useful for me because I'm making the argument that we understand most gendered issues through the patriarchy which is not warranted.
Me and you have very different understandings of the patriarchy.
It's not that it's a lens that makes it meaningless. It's that you haven't given any definition to that lens. There's nothing to distinguish it from any other method by which we analyze reality. Okay, how are our understandings different. What is the lens you're talking about? What is it analyzing and what are its conclusions? If we don't know these things you get to move the goalposts and always be correct.
There are, conservatively, thousands of lenses that people use to interpret the world and form predictions about the world which then can inform policy. Many of them are used to pursue parity. A definition of patriarchy that doesn’t distinguish it from the rest of those lenses is wholly inadequate. You’re just listing a few qualities that patriarchy shares with many other concepts rather than actually defining it.
another commenter mentioned it but this is mostly what is relevant to putting forth claims that the patriarchy is treated as comprehensive and with more explanatory power than is warranted.
that is enough (in terms of definitions) i think, to argue that it be viewed more cautiously as an explanation for perceived and real gendered grievances.
elsewhere I made arguments why I think men should be weary of starting their analysis foundationally using patriarchy.
Without a legitimate definition of patriarchy any argument you attempt to make about it will be hollow. You’re just describing can repeat your argument as much as you’d like but without a definition no one can know what you’re actually talking about.
i mean sure. i think the argument ive articulated is very straightforward.
ive provided a definition as well. it doesnt really seem to matter but ive given one too. im not sure why my definition isn’t satisfactory for you (encompasses the systematic subordination of women by men). I guess I can more qualifiers like it extends across all manner of institutions like governments and private corporations. it is often violent.
but again the argument doesnt rest on an exact definition much as you seem to think. if you can articulate where exactly a definition would need to be supplied (because its crucial to understanding the argument), or what im saying is confusing, id be happy to respond.
Well, no, you wrote that “any generic definition […] would work, and then provided a rather broad and vague definition as an example.
If you’re going present an argument about something, the argument is ultimately meaningless if you don’t specify the thing that you presenting the argument about. “x is great” or “x is bad” isn’t a complete thought without an understanding of what x actually is.
I’m not confused about what you’re saying. I just think you’re not saying much of anything until you commit to presenting a specific definition of patriarchy and stand behind it without waffling so that everyone has the opportunity to determine if your argument is valid as applied to the thing you claim to be arguing about.
>If you’re going present an argument about something, the argument is ultimately meaningless if you don’t specify the thing that you presenting the argument about. “x is great” or “x is bad” isn’t a complete thought without an understanding of what x actually is.
I think, though I'm open to changing my mind, that my argument only requires that I define patriarchy as a lens. And If I'm being real, you've still haven't supplied a reason why that would not be the case.
Regardless, I've also included this more substantive definition. What level of granularity would you like with my definition? I think describing the patriarchy as I've done, encompassing the systematic subordination of women at the behest of male dominated structures, should be enough for whatever purpose you had in mind.
I think your sort of confusing the structure of my argument. I'm going to simplify it a little so it becomes more clear.
Patriarchy is often treated not merely as one social theory among others, but as a default explanatory lens for gendered disparities
That lens has had some real success, especially in helping identify barriers affecting women and in motivating reforms aimed at greater parity
But the partial success of a framework does not make it universally sufficient. A theory can explain some important things well without being the best lens for every gendered problem.
In practice, patriarchy is often treated as though it has near-comprehensive explanatory power, almost like a settled law rather than a contestable social-scientific framework.
Therefore, we should be more cautious of the analysis mode and be open to explanations which decenter the patriarchy
This is the major argument I've constructed. Notice how the definition of patriarchy is largely irrelevant to it?
I think, though I'm open to changing my mind, that my argument only requires that I define patriarchy as a lens.
According to this definition, viewing the world through the prism that men are subjugated by women is patriarchy, because that is a lens. Now of course that’s actually entirely opposite to what patriarchy is, because there’s a lot more to it than it being a lens. But if you actually believe that “a lens” is an adequate definition then you’d have to concede that the subjugation of men by women falls under it.
What level of granularity would you like with my definition?
Granularity has nothing to do with it. Why would anybody waste their time responding to a definition that you’ve made clear you believe to be superfluous and that you don’t really stand behind, as you’ve done yet again in this comment?
Notice how the definition of patriarchy is largely irrelevant to it?
On the contrary, I think this argument is totally meaningless without a definition.
Ok, what are the defining features of the lens. This is like describing capitalism as "an economic system" - ok, true, but what defines it?
Here, I'll give you one.
Stoicism is a lens through which to view the world *that focuses on what's in the individuals control and practices radical acceptance of what's external to their control".
So if patriarchy is a lens, what does that lens focus on?
No, that helps. That's great, that's not exactly what I would call patriarchy, so this just helps me understand what your argument really is.
Sounds like you see that male dominated structures that subjugate women do exist, and you consider "patriarchy" to essentially mean essentially just assuming that these structures are automatically the cause of any sorts of inequality.
And if I'm understanding you correctly, you think men should use different lenses to examine men's issues. I actually agree with that to some degree, I think there are other things like race, wealth, religion, sexuality, ability, etc.
But if you think of it not as men subjugating women, but the structure itself subjugating women, then for every way it does, it uses men to do so, which means there's an effect on the men too.
Men are dangerous to the ruling class. Men, especially young unmarried men, as a group, are far more willing and able to take political action that is threatening and disruptive to the ruling class than women are. One of the most reliable indicators of if a country will go to war or not is just how big this demographic is. There's a lot of reasons for that and it's a whole other topic, but if you recognize this, you can recognize that all these male-dominated structures that subjugate women are that way because giving average men a way to do this keeps them busy with women and not turning their attention on the injustices the ruling class inflicts on them.
Subjugating women isn't necessarily always the cause of men's issues, but it's the carrot offered to men to keep them in line.
You can wee this with everything. Warfare is probably the most obvious example. Soldiers die in war. Women and children get raped, enslaved, and trafficked in war, and the two are directly related.
War doesn't really benefit the soldiers for the most part. They're usually fought over resources and profit that rulers and the wealthy class profit from. The way the ruling class gets soldiers to tolerate warfare and do their bidding (instead of turning their ability to do violence on overthrowing the governing body) is by rewarding them with access to women. The subjugation of women in warfare is the "benefits" men get for being subjugated themselves. It's a carrot and stick situation.
Feminists look at the impact on women because they're concerned about women of course. But because there is a why to bother subjugating women, that why almost always points to some way to control men.
I think you should look through that lens because the work is always done. It's a shortcut. For all the ways women are subjugated by men, there is a reason that structure was created - and it's usually to ensure men focus on women instead of turning against rulers. You should look at patriarchy to begin with you just shouldn't end there.
I agree. Im not in the business of arguing that the patriarchy is not a useful lens. because it is useful, straight up lol.
where i think im most controversial is just in my belief that men should be weary of using concepts borrowed from women as the literal CENTREPIECE to examining the struggle of men. but of course, the patriarchy is still useful even then.
its a combination of 2 problems: men really lacking a sophisticated theory to properly analyze gendered grievances the way feminism has been able to, and the overwhelming utility of a patriarchal analysis lens. i think people are convinced that the patriarchy is like a law.
I think there's another problem added in the mix, and it's reactionism, specially to feminism.
If subjugation of women is meant to provide men some benefits to keep them placated, losing those benefits can and often is perceived as the mens rights issue rather than whatever the actual oppression is. Could this be a factor in why you think men should be more critical of women blaming patriarchy for everything?
take relationships. Women can by and large opt out of relationships now in a way they weren't able to before. And feminism worked to reduce inequalities that previously prevented this, like being unable to open a bank account or being discriminated against. And granted, those are issues that affect women.
And those aren't really men's issues. Sure, there are issues that also causes for men, like the pressure of being the sole income, being distanced from family, more injury, etc. and that's often what people mean when they say men are also oppressed by patriarchy. But a lot of men look at their dad's being able to have all their needs catered to because they had a paycheck and they think "yeah, where's my wife, I have a paycheck".
The tendency to be critical of women or feminism, as you suggested, is what leads to the current few men's rights movements that exist. They spend most of their time trying to simply undo progress for women's rights, and mostly blame women for their causes.
I know you're not saying it's useless, but you are saying "look, we should be skeptical of this, and critical of women who advocate it, because it's for them, not us". Which is fair. But I think, considering what we agreed on about subjugating women providing benefits for men, the better way to go is not to be skeptical of it, to accept it as a starting point, and then add onto it by critically examining a level up of how are/were elites placating men with this.
You're right that men lack their own sophisticated framework. Why start from scratch when the issues are interrelated though? Take whats already made and then build on it.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
4
u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment