Here is a thing I wrote a while ago. You sound like you have literally no fucking clue what you are talking about. The patriarchy isn’t a group of men conspiring against women you fuckwit, go read about what you talk about before you make yourself look dumb
[spoiler]What is ‘the patriarchy’? One of the most misused words on the web, a lot of anti-feminists and self-proclaimed ‘meninists’ seem to be under the impression that patriarchy refers to a conspiring group of men who work together to come up with ways to oppress women. This is of course is not the case; far from being a conspiracy theory, the patriarchy is a real social phenomenon which can be seen in almost all cultures in some way, both historical and in contemporary society.
According to Oxford English Dictionary, patriarchy refers to “the predominance of men in positions of power and influence in society, with cultural values and norms favouring men”. What this shows us then, is that far from being a group of evil misogynistic men the patriarchy is in fact a complex web of social relationships which promote male dominance. With only 22.6% of Members of Parliament in the commons being women (23% in the Lords), a gender pay gap and a lack of women in senior roles in the private sector it is easy to see how our society resembles that of a patriarchy. However, the contemporary usage of the term in feminist critical theory is fluid and usually has multiple definitions, being generally broadened to include any social mechanism that exerts male dominance over women, such as the social enforcement of gender roles. In this sense, patriarchy is an ideological construct perpetuated by the actions and beliefs of both men and women which can be harmful and oppressive to both.
Many in contemporary feminist discourse prefer to use the arguably more accurate and socially relevant term ‘kyriarchy‘, a neologism coined in 1922 by Romanian-born German feminist Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza to describe a system of interconnected oppressive relationships and social stratification that takes many different forms, i.e plutocracy, colonialism, sectretarianism etc. This term therefore more accurately describes the combined effect of unequal wealth distribution, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other coercive pyramidal social structures and mechanisms to better account for the contemporary cultural theory paradigms of intersectionality and transnational feminism. What this means is that not all men share the same standards of privilege and social dominance as others, this is intersected by various social factors like socioeconomics, age, colour, and sexuality. Similarly some women will enjoy certain social privileges above others thanks to certain factors.
So how did patriarchy come about? Almost all sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning are primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles. (I forgot to put in sources and can’t be bothered to change the numbers but: ) Most evidence suggests that the subjugation of women came with the agricultural revolution, which gave birth to the development of specialization and the use of inherently socially-stratifying, alienating and coercive productive means instead of the traditional hunter-gathering method of requiring subsistence. This is backed up by the amount of resources that emphasise the actively egalitarian nature of pre-agricultural society. There are various views about the specific period that males came to hold a position of superordination, Gerder Lerner claims in Creation of Patriarchy that the agricultural revolution allowed for the commoditization of people, (women and children) to achieve practical means like tribal relationships and labour. She says:
The development of agriculture in the Neolithic period fostered the inter-tribal “exchange of women,” not only as a means of avoiding incessant warfare by the cementing of marriage alliances but also because societies with more women could produce more children. In contrast to the economic needs of hunting/gathering societies, agriculturists could use the labor of children to increase production and accumulate surpluses. (…) Women themselves became a resource, acquired by men much as the land was acquired by men. Women were exchanged or bought in marriages for the benefit of their families; later, they were conquered or bought in slavery, where their sexual services were part of their labor and where their children were the property of their masters. In every known society it was women of conquered tribes who were first enslaved, whereas men were killed. It was only after men had learned how to enslave the women of groups who could be defined as strangers, that they learned how to enslave men of those groups and, later, subordinates from within their own societies.
James DeMeo similarly argues that famine and climate change of the Arabian Peninsula 4000 BCE led to the adoption of patriarchal control mechanisms to secure food and resources, he states:
Famine, starvation and mass-migrations related to land-abandonment severely traumatised the originally peaceful and sex-positive inhabitants of those lands, inducing a distinct turning away from original matrism towards patristic forms of behaviour.
There are other theories of how patriarchy emerged , but it’s clear that the need for control of resources and the emergence of the means of production as a means to power was the primary causes for the subordination of women, and it’s also clear that this subordination quickly took root it philosophy, culture and religion to maintain itself; showing that the way patriarchy managed to permeate the dominant ideology of society and take root there is through the traditions, practices, education and beliefs of that society. Like, for example, traditionally referring to women in relation to men, as Lerner says:
sexual control of women was linked to paternalistic protection and that, in the various stages of her life, she exchanged male protectors, but she never outgrew the childlike state of being subordinate and under protection.
This symbolic degradation is therefore a cultural, traditional one. In ancient Athens women were treated as sub-species, unable to vote, trade, own property or live their own lives; their purpose in life was to serve men, both domestically and sexually. This was reflected in philosophy and religion, Kimberly M. Radek notes:
In Theogony, Hesiod explains the creation of the universe:
The female goddess Earth (Gaia) generates Heaven (Ouranos), and together they produce the Titans. Ouranos tries to prevent the birth of his children by holding them in Gaia’s womb. Gaia arms Kronos, her youngest son, who castrates Ouranos and declares himself ruler of the gods.
Kronos and Rhea generate the Olympian gods. Kronos, fearing his father’s fate, swallows his children as Rhea brings them forth. She deceives him, saving her youngest son, Zeus, who eventually tricks Kronos into vomiting up his swallowed children, Zeus’s siblings. War ensues, the Olympians win, and Zeus establishes himself as ruler of the universe.
Zeus and Metis (Intelligence) marry, and Zeus swallows her when she becomes pregnant. He gains control over her powers of reproduction. His first child, Athena, springs from his head, symbolizing the male dominance of the universe.
Interestingly, Arthur notes of these stories that all of Zeus’s other children (all female: Justice, Order, Peace, etc.) signify the beneficence of the female principle when subjugated to regulation by male authority. Arthur concurs that Hesiod’s model shows a progression from a world dominated by the generative powers of the female to one overseen by the moral authority of the male.
Thus the notion of female subjugation and male domination over them and their reproductive systems managed to maintain and replicate itself through the dominant ideology of the period it lived in throughout history; and was present wherever there was agriculture, production and consumption. Regardless of politico-economics, patriarchy has been seen throughout the world in many different forms consolidated by many different beliefs, from the harems (purdah, zenana) and polygamy of the Islamic orient to the monogamous sexually regulatory view of women as sexual property that was not swayed by Enlightenment Europe patriarchy has managed to stay; as Lerner suggests, the very basis for hierarchically organised society rests in the personality fostered within the patriarchal family. She says:
The control of male family heads over their female kin and minor sons was as important to the existence of the state as was the control of the king over his soldiers. This is reflected in the various compilations of Mesopotamian laws, especially in the large number of laws dealing with the regulation of female sexuality. From the second millennium B. C. forward control over the sexual behavior of citizens has been a major means of social control in every state society.
If hierarchical organization really was born out of patriarchal structures like DeMeo and Lerner suggest then this makes a lot of sense, and hence why the patriarchal family unit is present in every society in the modern world; It’s easy to see how Marxist and Socialist feminist thinkers have incorporated this branch of sociology into their social analysis. This is further supported by Michele Barrett and Mary McIntosh in their book ‘The Anti-social Family’ who identify the nuclear family as a widely held ideal that provides both emotional security and personal fulfillment whilst reinforcing material conditions of inequality, they call this the “hegemonic family form”, and others like Natalie Sokoloff have pointed out that this produces detrimental repercussions such as a mirroring of the sexual division of labour in the home and the marketplace. 83% of domestic workers for example are women.
This commoditization has somewhat disappeared since ancient times, no longer do men in Western countries explicitly use women as property and keep them as what are essentially sexual slaves, patriarchal gender roles are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development like Saudi Arabia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However even in the Western world gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favour males having a dominant status thanks to dual and gendered thinking of roles, and through holding up traditionally ‘male’ qualities as central. What these shifts have shown however, is that women have been able to free themselves from the ideological confines of the patriarchal framework; they have been able to think for themselves rather than think the way they have been taught. As Gerder Lerner says: “The feminist critique of the patriarchal edifice of knowledge is laying the groundwork for a correct analysis of reality, one which at the very least can distinguish the whole from a part. A feminist world-view will enable women and men to free their minds from patriarchal thought and practice and at last to build a world free of dominance and hierarchy, a world that is truly human.”[/spoiler]
Educational careers are literally all about raising and teaching children, which is literally one of the main characteristics of what is considered ‘feminine’. When I was in primary school only one of my teachers was male and he joined when I was in year 6. Most of my schoolteachers in secondary school were women, although less so than in primary.