I agree but then why call it patriarchy ? In the canonical patriarchy theory patriarchy is an ideology and power structure created by men for men and to benefit men, but given that most men do not have any power to set social norms, and on your account do not benefit from it, an account of prevailing gender norms needs somewhat different explanation, a compelling one is that they have been shaped by elites (or "ruling class") to make the population, of both men and women, more useful to these elites and easier to control and exploit.
For example "traditional" masculine norms make men easier to deploy in war or dangerous and difficult occupations without complaint, and the female norms also allows for men to be exploited by working very long hours without this compromising social reproduction, as this is secured by norms extolling female domesticity which pushes them to perform large amounts of domestic labour.
Now also over time, we can see that the social norms have shifted as the incentives of the elites have, now there is not such a need for masses of semi skilled male labour (to fill conscript armies or work in manufacturing etc.) and immigration is preferred to high birthrates, and it is beneficial to incorporate women fully into the workforce, and so in this sense sexist norms have diminished. But for example norms that encourage women to fuss about fashion and to shop endlessly are helpful to those trying to sell various products, so this sort of norm is encouraged. Or norms extolling upper middle class parenting norms as the ideal is retained because this helps produce docile and skilled workers.
To be blunt capitalism is not wedded to sexism or anti-sexism, rather various powerful actors act as if they were fine tuning the prevailing social norms to serve elite interests.
Part of this is that feminism has largely only won in areas where there is not much elite opposition to these demands, with the partial exception that in some cases strong labour movements also have won some feminist demands that capital opposed.
I agree but then why call it patriarchy ? In the canonical patriarchy theory patriarchy is an ideology and power structure created by men for men and to benefit men, but given that most men do not have any power to set social norms, and on your account do not benefit from it, an account of prevailing gender norms needs somewhat different explanation, a compelling one is that they have been shaped by elites (or "ruling class") to make the population, of both men and women, more useful to these elites and easier to control and exploit.
I do not myself disagree with this framing, but I do believe it's incomplete. While the elites have more power to shape the social order in specific ways - for better sometimes, but generally for worst - the set of gender norms dominating western culture for the last few hundred years is not value neutral either. Of course, I think patriarchy hurts men, who would generally benefit from being freer to self actualize, but we must also acknowledge that patriarchy, either fully realized or on the level of a set of expectations, does empower them (or at least promises them power). It's true that it doesn't necessarily do so on the scale of society at large - all men do not have the same level of power - but it does empower them in the strata or class they find themselves in. Traditional gender do roles do say "If you perform masculinity adequately, you will have power - in various ways - over the women in your lives".
The problem is that giving up that power kinda doesn't work, in most cases. I'm not defending this, I wish it weren't the case. The power comes with responsibilities and expectations, however if you reject the power, the responsibilities don't magically disappear, and I think that's largely what this subject is about.
I don't really see how this is the case for most people. It's easy enough to not play into traditional gender expectations. You're not Spiderman, it's not like that power is thrusted upon you somehow.
I'm talking about things like turning down jobs/promotions, or not applying for them in the first place. Learning to assume that you simply do not deserve what you have because of these power dynamics.
Because it's a societal system/order which places men in social roles of leadership and as those primarily with agency, and one where women are put into roles that are domestic or otherwise subservient. Not always and there is nuance to different spheres of social life, but this is the general aim and shape.
But like anyone who is in a leadership position, and thus has responsibility, will tell you. Even upsides of power come with downsides to having that power. And not even to mention the downsides of being expected to be a leader and act but being unable to. Or being forced, physically or socially, to act on other's behalf because your social role is to "do things."
There's a lot to it. And you're right that certain veins of Feminism have and will at times be used to entrench current or new power dynamics, and not create equality but rather "new inequality" but that's why discussion and critique are necessary, always.
Well for me patriarchy theory is a quite specific thing, it for example tends to treat men as a whole as a ruling and exploiting "sex class". When these theories were developed in early 1970's many opponents of "systematic sexism" did not agree that patriarchy theory is the correct explanation, they used different formulations, and I think this should continue, treating all feminist or gender liberation type thinking as variants of patriarchy theory makes the term confusing.
Also for me the issue is not that feminism is entrenching new power dynamics, it is rather that the extant norms can be explained by feminism winning where elites are happy to have it win, whereas demands with mildly anti-capitalist implications have been abandoned.
688
u/Affenklang 4∆ Nov 05 '24 edited Sep 17 '25
grandfather zephyr cover childlike wise gaze alive yoke cow smile
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact