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. The two concepts are entirely distinct and should not be confused. Due to the significant differences in meaning that this term has, anyone using it should clearly define the term before making their argument. Feminists often refer to The Patriarchy. This usage distinguishes it from non-feminist usage. Patriarchy, as defined by feminists, does not exist and never did exist, and is indicative of a very simplistic world view. The feminist notion of patriarchy is unfalsifiable.

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.

This is a fairly typical definition of patriarchy within mainstream feminism.

Dictionary Definition

In contrast, dictionary.com defines patriarchy like this:

pa·tri·arch·y  [pey-tree-ahr-kee]  Show IPA
noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe
   and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

Background

Feminists differ in their understanding of patriarchy. Some believe it has always existed while others believe it appeared a few thousand years ago. Some even believe there was an ancient matriarchy that was defeated by warlike patriarchal societies. There is never-the-less general acceptance among feminists that patriarchy is based on the systematic oppression of women by men is a constant of gender relations around the world.

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.

Merneith (13th century BCE)

Merneith was a queen in ancient Egypt and is thought to have ruled on her own for a period of time. If so she would be the earliest recorded female ruler in history.

Mary I of England and Ireland (1516-1558 CE)

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. 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.

Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587 CE)

Another female leader in the British Isles. Elizabeth I had Mary arrested when she came to see her. Mary met her end years later when Elizabeth finally signed her death warrant. Why had Mary come to see Elizabeth? To seek her protection of course.

Boudica (c20-60 CE)

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.

Cleopatra VII (69-30 BCE)

The machinations of Cleopatra in Roman politics are well known today. What is less well known is that she fought with one sister and two brothers (both of which were her husbands at different times) to hold the throne of Egypt. Egyptian armies followed Cleopatra and her sister Arsinoe without regard for gender. Apparently no one told the ancient Egyptians about the global patriarchy.

Kyriarchy

Some opponents of the MRM have tried to argue that criticism of the feminist notion of patriarchy is pointless since academic feminists now emphasise kyriarchy rather than patriarchy. Even if this is true, which is questionable, academic feminists taught patriarchy to impressionable young women in gender studies classes for 40 years. Even if the academic feminists have moved on, those that they taught for so long have not. Enormous numbers of women and men believe in the feminist notion of patriarchy and the MRM is right to confront it and reveal it as a myth.

The originator of the term, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, defines kyriarchy as:

a neologism…derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination… Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.

As can be seen here, the very definition of the term, uttered by the originator of the term continues to see patriarchy as central to this new term.

In moving from patriarchy to kyirarchy feminists themselves are showing that patriarchy was a flawed and overly simplistic idea. Kyirarchy itself is still overly simplistic.

Separatism

If the claims made by feminists about men, including that they have systematically oppressed women throughout history using violence, are true then separatism would be a viable option. If men have really acted this way towards women over thousands of years then it would be reasonable to conclude that this is intrinsic to the nature of men. Women believing this would do well to create a society without men. They could have women fulfil all of the roles in society, even the dangerous and dirty ones.

See Also

• Kyriarchy

External Links

• Feminist Archeologist Accidentally Destroys Feminist Theory of Patriarchy
• Historical female leaders

References

<references>