Egalitarians for real equality.: patriarchy
Just an article I wrote for the school paper about the concept of patriarchy. This issue is our gender-themed issue so I got kind of excited.
—-
My sociology textbook defines patriarchy as “a place historically designed for the convenience of men, and structured according…
Interestingly, none of this, despite it’s being true, is a reason for feminism to be considered illogical or unneeded. To the contrary, “feminism” as it’s come to be called, should be supported by all people in an attempt for equality, if it is to be supported at all. As with all political movements, feminism is an experiment, which, followed to its fullest extent, could prove worthwhile and teach us a lot about human psychology/sociology. Simply because some “patriarchal” statutes do not favor some men is not reason enough to discount the basis of feminism. No social construct can successfully cater to everyone.
As for the evolution argument, it is highly overused and over-exaggerated; in addition, it has hardly any baring on the lifestyle of modern people. Sure, men were hunters and women were gatherers/child rearers, but in a world where both men and women can be sit-at-a-computer-behind-a-deskers, that fact of literally thousands of years ago should be irrelevant. Not ignoring, of course, that the logical conclusion of men being hunters instead of gatherers/child rearers should not end in men being rulers, men being money makers, or men controlling access to contraception and abortion. In fact, if we’re talking from a reproductive and even societal sense, it would seem to me that the natural occurrence would be the opposite. Women, with “control” of their wombs, children, and the society’s lands while the men are away, would, it seems to me, be the logical choice for precedence over these culturally male domains. But that isn’t the way society is, is it?
If, indeed, the roles of society are so narrowly defined, and the constructs of gender do bother males as much as they bother females, than there’s nothing holding men from fighting back either. The postulation that feminism fights for women’s equality does not make it any less noble a cause, nor does it squash men by existing. To the contrary, I believe, for quite a number of men, although they may be a minority, it’s an inspiration to fight/connive/argue for and against other social norms. There’s no reason why feminism should concern itself male polemics simply to be considered a reputable cause, and attempting to hold the movement to that restriction is a denial of it’s validity in it’s most reproachable form.
————————————————————————————————-
Frankly, though, the idea that everyone would rally ‘round the political movement if it stressed the inequality of the “patriarchy” in general and postulated that men should not be forced to be dominant, powerful, and successful in a culture that values powerful, dominant, and successful people, is incredibly absurd. Why would men want to undercut what little prejudice still exists that may or may not allow them a handicap in the world’s olympic race?
