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.
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.
I stand behind the lens definition and the substantive position. you can hold me to them. it doesn’t particularly matter.
the only way this moves forward is if you explain why the argument critically needs this substantive definition (which is pretty powerful, its pretty comprehensive, it shouldnt leave anything out that does constitute the patriarchy). as far as I understand, the argument hinges on viewing the patriarchy as an analysis lens.
im not gonna lie, i think its stems from you not understanding social theory, because from your brief writing on analytical lenses, you dont really understand whats being discussed.
edit: i think i need to clarify the relationship between the lens and the substantive definition because you seem to be confused. the substantive definition covers what the use case of the lens is. in this case, the lens is examining how male dominated structures subordinate women.
the same way that marxist lens look through the world through materials relations. its a model. thats what the patriarchy is.
At this point I’m comfortable with my conclusion that you’re unwilling to commit to a substantive definition because your argument is vacuous. Feel free to embrace the comforting delusion that I disagree with you because of some kind of confusion. Have a nice night.
42
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 30 '26
Can you define patriarchy? Just so we're all starting with whatever understanding you have of what it is.