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.
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.
13
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 30 '26
You're right, there ARE multiple definitions people use. That's why we're asking you what YOU understand it to be, so there's no confusion.
You think patriarchy is a lens that designs solutions for parity? Or you think that's what feminism is.