It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I am the Patriarchy

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+3 more 
posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:18 PM

I am the Patriarchy

(caution: language)

The other day I had the fortunate chance to hold a door open for another human being. But as I did so, the human I opened the door for asserted that such common courtesy wasn’t necessary, that she “didn’t need a man to hold a door open” for her, and the unconscious act of this benign kindness was in some strange fantastical way an instance of tyranny. In apology for my oppressive act, I let the door go and it closed on her mid-stride, thereby allowing her to struggle with her shopping bags. I walked away in silence as she guffawed and shook her head in ironic indignation.

Of course, I would have held the door open for anyone, but because I was generalized based on my gender, I was, before ever having known anything about me, objectified into some tool of an illusory patriarchy, the enemy, destined to perpetuate gender-roles and rape culture throughout society by my very male existence. What a strange consequence of my being unfortunate enough to be born a certain way. By my being there, I was seen as merely in the way, and even a hurdle standing before the ideals of this woman’s ideological background. It would be unnecessary to point out the contradiction and double-standards.

Feminism, by name, excludes me. Why? I don’t have a feminine bone in my body, and as such, I cannot be a feminist. There’s no room for me in any feminist theory, except that I am allowed to play the part of the oppressor in their fantasies, or that I should be a feminist, so that I can, like them, promote one gender at the expense of my own. So be it. If I am seen as the enemy before being in any way judged on my individual merit, I will gladly play that role for them. Such roles are required to perpetuate the irrationality and contradiction found in marginalizing an entire gender based on specific gender-centric notions. Why not support and justify feminism by acting how they say we act? Why not let them dictate our gender roles and values, and in turn, allow them the opportunity to oppress and objectify their fellow human beings?

Because such would be asinine to any rational human being, yet the dogma of society being a patriarchy is frequent among feminist circles. One might wonder that if society became a matriarchy—the obvious goal of feminist institutions—if they would support masculinism on the same grounds of inequality. However, no patriarchy exists here friends. There is only oligarchy, where all genders are objectified into human resources and tools of a corporate state by those that seek position and profits, leaving us all to face it unified. Nonetheless, you seek to divide and conquer. By all means, play the part of a drone if you are so willing. You have earned it. That is your right if you shall take it. Climb that corporate ladder, smash through glass ceilings as you clamour your way to becoming the true oppressors of individuals.

I am the patriarchy, guilty by association. The enemy. You have already assigned me as such. See to it that when you gain the power you lust after, what you nonchalantly call “equality”, that you see me as unequal. Objectify me. Deny me based on my nature. Set me free of my sin.

Thank you for reading,

+4 more 
posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:36 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I am a Woman. You may open and hold doors for me, pull out my chair for me, walk me around to the passenger side of the car and open the door for me.

When you do those polite things for me. I see chivalry is not dead. I respect, your respect for me.

Any Woman that feels otherwise, is lacking in some inherent self confidence, to allow that kind of mutual respect.

Call me old fashioned if you want...I like it.


posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:50 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The mind loves to distinguish itself and will use anything to achieve that. None the less, it is our own personal scribe trying to write history or herstory. Let us not fall out of Grace, that is what duality is to fall. So many ways to do it, we all know that much is true.

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:08 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Don't take it personal. Every 2 minutes in the US there is a sexual assault. You don't know what may have happened her to make her recoil from the attention of men, good or bad. Feel sorry her that she did not recognize kindness and respect.

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:11 PM
I could be considered ''feminist'' by default.

I was brought up treated differently because of being born female, I was reminded of this daily, it was even physically said to me, considering myself lesser was expected of me and when I stepped out of that I was soon reminded, in all too hurtful to recall ways.

Thankfully, I am headstrong and always have been, I have always fought against the demeaning of me for being female, and as such I will do for any demeaning of any female just for being female, same for the general female population. I see this as being ethical and having my moral compass pointing in the right direction. I hold the same moral standards generally, so if I seen a man being bullied just for being a man I would be against it, same for any sort of bullying.

I refuse allowing my childhood pain any hold on my life or emotions so I won't dwell on it but my ''feminism'' is a survival tool and ingrained in my DNA, it is naturally a part of me.

Now for the definism of my ''feminism'', I would say it is just natural equality, I don't go around protesting or dressing like a man, I am heterosexual and value the strengths of men as I value the strengths of women, both have areas in which we are more suited to, if a man holds a door open for me I would be just as grateful as if a woman had.

So while you might be miffed at some woman stropping at you, you might like to refrain from collectively referring to her actions as typically ''feminist'', just as you would rather your action of holding a door open wasn't seen as typically ''patriarchal''.

Maybe she was having a bad day, maybe she had been abused by men all her life, you don't know her point of view. Just as the small interaction of her words to you hurt you and you are griping about it online, feeling victimised, she might have endured much worse from a society that has made life for women a whole different ball game to that of men in many ways. So whilst a kind gesture should be seen as such, perhaps there were perceived interactions, however subliminal or miniscule, eye contact etc that she objected to that caused the reaction.

So, whilst you might not be guilty of ''patriarchy'', society is bent that way, and all men should be able to see how this affects women.

Furthermore, accusing ''feminists'' as wanting a ''matriarchy'' is just plain old playing the victim and a straw man argument. ''Feminism'' is about EQUALITY.
edit on 20-4-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:32 PM
Wow, I'm very shocked at this clip from Toronto.

I was a fan of Farrell's books, and to myself he just wanted men to think more consciously of themselves as gendered beings.

I actually thought one could stand for the equal rights of both women and men.

I only read one book of his, but I cannot recall it supporting rape whatsoever.
It said something to the likes of that teenage men can be confused on when to go too fast or too slow by mixed social messages.
However, I think that's miles away from supporting patriarchal rape.

edit on 20-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:32 PM

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But as I did so, the human I opened the door for asserted that such common courtesy wasn’t necessary, that she “didn’t need a man to hold a door open” for her, and the unconscious act of this benign kindness was in some strange fantastical way an instance of tyranny.

Is this exactly what the human said?
Did the human in question say that you were a tyrant?

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:03 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I like your posts because of your style, let's start with that. Now I will make the critique. If you had opened the door for her because she was a woman, it would have had the built in cultural structure (not something you are necessarily aware of, but something that exists nonetheless) that she was not capable of holding the door for herself.

I have seen men offer this kind of "assistance" to woman, thinking they are superior and that the woman is an object, not someone to empathize with, see. A woman is a human just like you or I. There is no need for special treatment, but equal treatment, no need for pity, but for empathy.

Just like in the Oligarchy you mentioned that does exist, a disproportionate distribution of power always results in a lack of empathy. And empathy is what you want, is it not? If you are straight, which I assume, it would be in your best interest to find a girl with whom to empathize. And empathy, by its very nature, depends on people being able to empathize, which depends on people having similar backgrounds.

Therefore, I caution you in thinking that "patronizing" a woman will help empathize with her - scientifically, this is not the case. Even empirical studies have shown that the best relationships are ones where the two involved are on equal footing - looks, money, you name it - other studies have shown that empathy increases with propinquity, or similar life experiences. Patriarchy can shoot men in the foot, see.

On to your situation. If you were honestly holding the door open for her because she had heavy bags, that is one thing and she could have misinterpreted. Women are good readers of people, however. The trick is to hold the door open because of the bags, not because of the gender. If she was perceptive, she could tell the difference.

This is where things go in your favor. If she was not perceptive, and misread the situation, than she hath erred. But sometimes a woman can know things about you that you didn't even know about yourself -

-My Critique

P.S. Thank you, I was thinking of writing on this very subject about a week ago.
edit on 20pmSun, 20 Apr 2014 18:11:00 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:13 PM
And here I thought opening a door for another person whatever gender was doing a good thing. Of course people can open door themselves but if you are already at the door why not hold it a while to let them thru. But then I am a weird one since I expect that a woman or a man should do the same to me if they are at the door.

If ultra feminist have issue with this then that is their issues. But who cares about the ultra feminist? They are as dualistic in their hate as racist or religious fanatics are.
edit on 20-4-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:16 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Oh I see. It was my fault. I give off a bad vibe, eh? I looked at her weird, because...why? Because I’m a man and she’s a woman? She requires no social responsibility towards others? She gets a free pass, due to some conjecture about how hard her life must be? It seems that the typical feminist response is to demonize before having a single insight into what they demonize. And yes it is very typical, but not because of her gender, but because of her feminist ideology. Like I said, I’ll play that role for you. It must have been the way I looked at her and made her feel small. Right. At least such a lie, if it could be believed, would in some way justify the mistruths and double-standards feminists resort to.

Yes it was all my fault. I am incapable of any humanity. I am the patriarchy. Perhaps I should take advantage of my male rights and seek social, political and economic advancement. It should be simple, shouldn’t it? If only it was.

Feminism isn’t about equality. It is about woman’s rights. Feminism isn’t a branch of egalitarianism. This isn’t humanism. By that logic, the polar opposite men’s rights movement is also about equality. But why do you not support masculism just the same? That’s right, because it has nothing to do with equality. Men’s rights have nothing to do with women’s rights. The inverse is the same.

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:18 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think the misconception you have here is that men and women are separate species. The main problem I can identify feminists have with Patriarchy is that it promotes gender segregation.
edit on 20pmSun, 20 Apr 2014 18:20:11 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: darkbake

Why would I open the door for her because she is a woman? Should I then let the door close for men? Aren't we civilized enough to hold the door open for anyone?

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:20 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If that is the true reason, of course.


Now here is an aside. I had a lot of traumatic experiences in college due to a radical feminist camp that thought I was evil incarnate due to my odd social quirks and such. They even cornered and threatened my female friends, telling them to stop hanging out with me, or else there would be consequences. IT was not productive and the continued harassment ruined my life for a few years and gave me anxiety that persists to this day.

I was brought in front of Judicial Committee for odd behavior that was found to be "offensive." And when random men from town snuck into the girl's bathroom on occasion, I was blamed and Campus Safety was told to investigate me. It went on for 4 years.
edit on 20pmSun, 20 Apr 2014 18:26:48 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: darkbake

I think the misconception you have here is that men and women are separate species. The main problem I can identify feminists have with Patriarchy is that it promotes gender segregation. - See more at:

I don't think that makes any sense. At least two genders are required to propagate any mammalian species.

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:27 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That doesn't mean that you have to treat your mate as an alien species.

If you two are going to live together and get married, you might as well have empathy for each other. Segregation by gender to the degree it exists in many parts of society isn't necessary for mating or even marriage. In fact, as I mentioned, the more successful marriages involve high amounts of empathy and the like.

The whole point is to get out there and find someone you have similarities to - it's a positive idea.

I think the false premises are that having a wife in the kitchen and a man who works break down barriers, that guys gaming and girls not gaming breaks down barriers, that girls sewing and guys not sewing breaks down barriers. These are all patently false logical statements that are promoted by patriarchal interests.

The gender segregation adds barriers that has the net result in less empathetic marriages, and in addition to that, less satisfying old age - a lot of men, while being trapped with a woman they cannot empathize with, also insist that they cannot spend too much time with male friends, lest it be gay.

You can call me a post-feminist if you want, because what I have to say are my own thoughts, not feminist propaganda. These conclusions are ones I came to after much analysis of all sides.

There are pieces you mentioned that I definitely agree with but haven't mentioned since I am playing Devil's Advocate at the moment.

Here is one example: men and women are wired oppositely neurologically (except in the case of gay men and women, who are wired the same as the gender they empathize with). It may not be realistic to expect society to fit a mold that would require overcoming neurological barriers in the brain - but I still think empathy could be increased by decreasing gender barriers.

edit on 20pmSun, 20 Apr 2014 18:46:42 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:41 PM
Just to add, contemporary ideas of ''feminism'' have progressed a lot since the days of it's association to militant types. Many men and institutions are recognising that feminism has it's place in revolutionising the world we live in, making it a safer, fairer place.

Who needs feminism
Cambridge needs feminism

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:49 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

See, there are some legitimate reasons I might want feminism - what if I want to do traditionally female things, like cook or socialize? What if I would like women to have an increased presence in things I like to do, like gaming and being assertive? What if I want to be free to have guy friends without being accused of being gay?

There are three legitimate reasons, right there, as a guy, why I support feminism.[ But anyway Les - I agree with some of the stuff you say as well... and this is something I struggle with daily.
edit on 20pmSun, 20 Apr 2014 18:52:40 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 07:15 PM
I'm just against the disposability of men as described by Farrell.

Men have died in their thousands and millions, for both Queens and Kings, and certainly not all women were always anti-war.

Society has changed (at least in the West) since Farrell's book on the Myth of Male Power.
We have more rights for fathers and even in some places, maternity leave for men.
Women are also less excluded (and men not immediately expected) to perform the most dangerous jobs.

People become more aware of social issues if both genders are considered as equally disposable or worthy of protecting.

What still floors is me is that while conscription for men hasn't been around for a while, it seems in some places men must register for some kind of potential conscription.
I'd say then women must register for some kind of civil service for a similar length of time.
Why should women advance their careers, while men must drop everything, when so much affirmative action already favors them?
That shows continuing attitudes of male disposability.
Obviously these "femi-Nazis" wouldn't even care much for their sons to have an equal shot at life.

In South Africa white women count as affirmative action candidates, yet many of them also supported apartheid and the erstwhile propaganda.
Meanwhile, white males, now aged around 40 and over, were conscripted by law, and had to spend years in the army, often with horrific experiences.
And yet, white males are the only ones excluded from affirmative action!
edit on 20-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 07:40 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You see yourself as a victim whilst ignoring the victimizing of women generally and the unbalanced nature of a patriarchal society and the ails it has caused.

Until people like you actually learn the real meaning of words and stop being self centred, see the bigger picture, and have empathy towards the rest of humanity how do you think the world will move forward?

Perhaps you don't see the world in any real sense, are you blinkered to the plight of many women in the world? are you oblivious to the need for true feminism redressing the balance for equality and if so that is your problem and a fail on your part.

Just incase you missed that memo, society is not okay, it needs fixing.

Thankfully, there are many that see that redressing the balance of power in the world and recognising women as equal is imperative and essential to healing societies and these sensitive, insightful people are increasing, making the way for a better world.

Just remember you were born of woman.

Something I recall from primary school, about 50% of the boys in the class were very vocal about ''boys being superior to girls'', they made a big deal of letting their view known, daily. Once during a debate I said to them ''perhaps we shall see how you think of that statement when you all have daughters'', at least 4 of them now have daughters, funnily I didn't see many comments from them on how superior all the male offspring of the class members are to their daughters.

Treating females as inferior will always result in it coming right back at you, in ways you might not expect.

Denying the equality of women is denying your own heritage, genetics and that which brought you to life and nurtured you, womanhood is the very essence of life and nurturing that society has to realise and respect, for when it is, the macho wars will cease and love will flourish as it is meant to.

While you are nursing you ego after a woman who said something to you that you felt offended by (do you write about it on ATS when a man offends you?), perhaps you could check some stats and try to visualise the bigger picture.

Also, if you can't understand my post and the fact you need to realise it isn't all about you (stop being egocentric) and are looking for arguments, don't bother, as wasting my time on the ignorant is something I won't do. -gender-inequality-across-all-cultures/
edit on 20-4-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:13 PM
Society is a patriarchy.

First you say you held the door open the door to another human being , but then that human being disappears and is objectified by you into a "woman" (who you claim calls you a tyrant and so you then slam the door on her) .
Poor bloody human being having a door shut on them just because of your conditioned mind.
You think the woman you shut in the door was a feminist because you imagined she called you a tyrant or was she a feminist just because she was a woman?

There is a history of suppression of the female by the male. The pain woman have suffered and the oppression needs to be understood by the male, not denied. You cannot see how you reduced and objectified this human being into a female (and yourself into a male) which then caused you to react and shut the door on her .

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in