I hate this way of putting it, especially because it puts the blame on a single gender. It’s not JUST men who shoehorn people into gender roles, we all do it.
It’s off putting to me and I tend to dismiss the entire thing because it basically says that men being bad also hurts men. Had it said that men also are victims of gender roles I would immediately agree, and I can’t imagine that I’m the only one who feels this way.
That’s why it’s so important to specify that men are victims of patriarchy, not victims of men. Everyone, regardless of gender, has an environmental tendency to reinforce the societal structure that we label “Patriarchy”, as you say (and I/many agree), but there’s far more to it than the idea of “men first women second”. The idea behind the phrase is not “everyone vs. men” but rather “everyone vs. harmful but deeply engrained social construct”.
Then why use the label “Patriarchy”? It has a very specific meaning that I don’t feel applies to many western societies and definitely not to the sociatal structure and norms that we happen to live in, regardless of who is in charge. I think we agree on everything but the term.
Because it still puts men on top in most ways, even while it hurts them too.
And it definitely applies to all western societies.
You can see it in this very story. “Men are strong, they don’t need help. Women are weak and emotional, that’s why they need support.” Yeah, it’s devastating for men in this situation, but it’s the same logic which makes people say men are natural leaders or whatever.
Don’t forget that leadership is not a cakewalk either; it comes with responsibility and sacrifice. It is a burden as are most ‘advantages’ that men ‘enjoy’.
In a just world it would be, but the consequence of being labelled and perceived as a “natural leader” is that one can get away with shirking their responsibility, avoiding sacrifice, and abusing their position without much repercussion.
The Patriarchs in question does not refer to all men. It specifically calls out the culture of the "elders"and those who have had ample opportunity to become established influences through the system. Those who subscribe to old fashioned beliefs and those at the top of the power structures that benefit from their compliance from younger, poorer generations. Emotionally distant men and limiting variability within the group makes the entire demographic more easily exploitable. A lot of roles in the family and society exist for men outside the title of “patriarch” but patriarchs specifically use their role to self legitimize their power over other people and make everyone in some way subservient.
It’s kind of a shorthand for “old fashioned” conservative systems of organization that prime men to be “leaders in embryo”. The gendered component is still valid because it is still a dominant model that is marbled with minor subversions of it. Women and non-standard men may have changed their place in the family but even when they reach the top they have to make themselves non-threatening to the cohort of established powers and play by their rules to succeed.
I hate this way of putting it, especially because it puts the blame on a single gender. It’s not JUST men who shoehorn people into gender roles, we all do it.
It’s off putting to me and I tend to dismiss the entire thing because it basically says that men being bad also hurts men. Had it said that men also are victims of gender roles I would immediately agree, and I can’t imagine that I’m the only one who feels this way.
That’s why it’s so important to specify that men are victims of patriarchy, not victims of men. Everyone, regardless of gender, has an environmental tendency to reinforce the societal structure that we label “Patriarchy”, as you say (and I/many agree), but there’s far more to it than the idea of “men first women second”. The idea behind the phrase is not “everyone vs. men” but rather “everyone vs. harmful but deeply engrained social construct”.
Then why use the label “Patriarchy”? It has a very specific meaning that I don’t feel applies to many western societies and definitely not to the sociatal structure and norms that we happen to live in, regardless of who is in charge. I think we agree on everything but the term.
Because it still puts men on top in most ways, even while it hurts them too.
And it definitely applies to all western societies.
You can see it in this very story. “Men are strong, they don’t need help. Women are weak and emotional, that’s why they need support.” Yeah, it’s devastating for men in this situation, but it’s the same logic which makes people say men are natural leaders or whatever.
Don’t forget that leadership is not a cakewalk either; it comes with responsibility and sacrifice. It is a burden as are most ‘advantages’ that men ‘enjoy’.
In a just world it would be, but the consequence of being labelled and perceived as a “natural leader” is that one can get away with shirking their responsibility, avoiding sacrifice, and abusing their position without much repercussion.
That’s fair enough. I guess it depends how you view leadership.
The Patriarchs in question does not refer to all men. It specifically calls out the culture of the "elders"and those who have had ample opportunity to become established influences through the system. Those who subscribe to old fashioned beliefs and those at the top of the power structures that benefit from their compliance from younger, poorer generations. Emotionally distant men and limiting variability within the group makes the entire demographic more easily exploitable. A lot of roles in the family and society exist for men outside the title of “patriarch” but patriarchs specifically use their role to self legitimize their power over other people and make everyone in some way subservient.
It’s kind of a shorthand for “old fashioned” conservative systems of organization that prime men to be “leaders in embryo”. The gendered component is still valid because it is still a dominant model that is marbled with minor subversions of it. Women and non-standard men may have changed their place in the family but even when they reach the top they have to make themselves non-threatening to the cohort of established powers and play by their rules to succeed.
Because they didn’t get over the societally enforced misandry and its dehumanization of men.
because those gender roles are largely decided by men