a reply to: LesMisanthrope
First, I think there is very little parallel between slavery and the oppression of women.
Not a parallel. Just a comparison of the mindset that fostered division among those enslaved. Or in the case of women, oppressed. If memory serves me
correctly. There was a bit of division among women in the early 20th century as to whether or not they should be allowed to vote. Today, that argument
would be considered ridiculous. Of course, women have a right to vote. Nevertheless, it was only "granted" them in the 20th century. This is merely
one example of many that could be given. While we may have progressed much since the early 20th century. Equality is hardly a given in our modern
Second, my argument was actually pro-feminist, and I was merely trying to follow the distorted logic of feminism, as ironically as I could. Note the
sarcasm in those paragraphs.
For the most part, I understood what you were trying to convey, I think. As well as the twisted logic of the extreme of feminism, and the prevalence
of misandrists among them.
A patriarchy implies women are inferior to men, and have been since the dawn of civilization (remember, this is a feminist notion). However, this
notion is false; women are not inferior to men, and this can be proven historically, as many women have held positions of absolute power. Women are
50% of the world’s population, and have always had 50% of the share in culture necessarily.
Historically, the percentage of women who have held absolute power, in comparison to the percentage of men is very unbalanced in the extreme. And in
most cases, was considered a necessary evil to keep royalty in the seat of power until a male of the bloodline could take the throne. Also, it is
obvious historically, that some women(and men) were more equal than others.
Culture has been shaped by men as far back as we can dig up. The Abrahamic cultures being a glaring example of such. That women are 50% of a culture,
does not mean they were ever given a part in it's cultivation.
Society obviously doesn’t favour all men. Most of the homeless population are men. Most soldiers are men. It is simply untrue to state that such a
society favours men based purely on their gender, and subjugates women based purely on their gender. The existence of the Queen with power over entire
armies of men etc. proves the patriarchy false evidentially. The idea that a society that favours men will make a woman a queen is a contradiction.
That men would be the majority of the homeless, makes perfect sense in a patriarchal-type society. I suspect as women gain more of the "equality"
they seek, in the psyche of the average person, this will balance out. That the majority of our armed forces are men, also makes perfect sense,
considering it is only in recent history that women were allowed in combat. With the exception of the ancient Celtic tribes, and a few others.
It must follow then that society is an oligarchy, and regardless of gender, people are oppressed by those who hold power, not masculinity. In the
instances where women are oppressed based solely on their gender, it is the result of theocracy, not masculinity.
Whatever the constitution may say. America is administrated by an oligarchy(imo), which also leans heavily toward theocracy, because it serves their
purpose. When was the last time an atheist openly ran for office, and was elected. Christian "values" dominate the political landscape, and the
psyche of the average citizen. Because of that, society still leans heavily toward a patriarchal structure.
Among the oligarchy and royalty, I would submit that gender equality exists. While among the commoners, gender division suits those who rule, because
divide and conquer has always worked, and it still does.