The Absurdity of Patriarchy

Patriarchy has a variety of definitions. This site responds to the feminist definition which differs markedly from dictionary definitions or the definition used by anthropologists, sociologists and other researchers. Today the feminist definition of patriarchy is widely accepted by the wider community within western nations. Patriarchy, as defined by feminists, does not exist and never did exist, and is indicative of a very simplistic world view.

Definitions

Sample Feminist Definition

This is a definition of patriarchy by the London Feminist Network

Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterised by current and historic
unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed. This
takes place across almost every sphere of life but is particularly noticeable in women’s under-representation in
key state institutions, in decision-making positions and in employment and industry. Male violence against women
is also a key feature of patriarchy. Women in minority groups face multiple oppressions in this society, as race,
class and sexuality intersect with sexism for example.

Concrete Terms

Anyone believing in patriarchy should try to answer the following questions in concrete terms.

When and where did it start?

If patriarchy existed and exists, it must have started somewhere. Be specific in providing information on where and when this occured.

What written evidence did the purveyors of patriarchy in the past leave behind?

If patriarchy existed in the past those maintaining the system would likely have had a theoretical basis for their activities and they would probably have written this down. Copies should survive.

The requirement here is for written evidence of the systematic and intended oppression of women. Documents (such as the Torah and Christian Bible) that describe ancient cultural practices are not sufficient. This document would need to explicitly talk about the oppression of women, why it is done, how it is achieved, etc. Transmitting a complex system from father to son generation after generation unchanged would be implausible without written reference documents.

Women who lived under patriarchy must have been aware of it. Did they leave any written records explicitely detailing the system used to oppress them?

Did women ever try to rise up and fight it?

Fighting in this context need not mean physical violence. The women of a village (or an entire society), realising their plight, could choose to leave en masse with their children, fleeing their oppressors. Women could also fight the oppression of patriarchy by engaging in passive resistance. This would involve the women of a community (or a society) refusing to participate in their own oppression. They could collectively refuse to participate in any form of work that supported the society, and therefore their own oppression.

If this ever occurred it would likely have been a significant event and would be in the written record of that society or a neighbouring society.

It is worth noting that the MGTOW movement explicitly talks about men passively and lawfully resisting contributing to a state system that is hostile to them. If patriarchy existed, parallel attitudes should have existed among women.

If so, what was the result?

Did any of these women succeed in shaking off patriarchy? For those that did not succeed, what was the punishment? How many women where tortured, killed or exiled by the men of their society for the failed uprising? How many women were punished in other ways? When uprisings are suppressed it is common for the ruling class to publicise the unsuccessful uprising and the punishments meted out so as to dissuade others. Records detailing an event like this should still exist.

Why did patriarchy ever permit female rulers?

Many societies had a minority of female rulers. Claims of patriarchy must explain why a patriarchal system would ever permit any female rulers. Some feminists attempt to explain the rise of women in to leadership roles as a result of intersectionality. The principle problem with this argument is that oppressors do not allow any member of an oppressed group in to the ruling class regardless of any other characteristics they have. Indeed, any members of the oppressed group that might be possible leaders are often eliminated by their oppressors.

Those arguing for patriarchy must also explain why local female rulers were preferred over foreign male rulers as is historically documented. Two examples are given here.

Mary I of England and Ireland

When Mary I married, the terms of the marriage contract made her and her foreign husband joint rulers of England. He could not act without her consent. It is clear that the English nobility trusted an English woman to rule more than a foreign man. When Mary died in 1558 the crown did not remain with her foreign husband but rather went to her English half sister Elizabeth I. Nationality trumped gender.

Boudica

Both the Roman emperor and Queen Boudica had a claim to the allegiance of the Iceni tribe in ancient Britain, after the death of Boudica's husband. The Iceni unreservedly backed Boudica over the male emperor. Nationality trumped gender, again.

References

<references>