Comments on: Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too?

By: Pat R.

Pat R. — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:18:17 +0000

The idea of men out front in the culture, economic and social wars of mankind makes sense in that males are, in theory, the stronger of the sexes and able to withstand the physical disputes of conflict that descend to that level through confrontation. That men have perverted the nature of patriarchy to assume the position of privilege rather than protection of women and children is a great fault of modern culture, and an inevitable result of gang-style political management that steers women to the sidelines of such issues. As inevitable as it may be, the patriarchal presence used correctly seeks to involve women, to do the social burden that doesn’t discount their value, or misuse their talents. For men, this is as essential as it is for women, since, in theory, misuse turns society into garbage from which future sons and grandsons are required to choose their companions. If destroyed, there is little that would afford the pride that patriarchy relies upon to define itself and its success. So, men are harmed by a perverted patriarchy in many intangible ways that have a spirit of poetic justice for what men sew, so shall they reap, for their sons and grandsons, also, not to mention their daughters, and their elders. The broad shoulders of men have been highly valued to withstand that burden, the pressure of maintaining cultural integrity that today is all but lost to powerful international forces of contrasts in method, mechanics and purpose. The salvage and salvation of the patriarchy for men, lies in the willingness to assume the examination of whether the standards set are those that support the origins and initiative, including the flexibility for women to use their education and enterprise, or whether it is merely obsolete, relegated to the dust bins of history that ignored its purpose, its construction and its maintenance for the honorable design that perhaps devinely was the obvious choice, given male strength and ease of mobility. Certainly, there is question today of whether men even want a patriarchy or whether they prefer the feudal benefits of sovereignty and servants for which they show every evidence of expanding rather than curtailing. For these self indulgent men, perhaps the advantage of patriarchy has afforded a sense of fantasy that women are unable and unwilling to indulge or support that causes the conflict of gender wars that women are certain to lose.

By: FoolishOwl

FoolishOwl — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:44:42 +0000

I had thought that Omar’s point in #1 and Amanda’s point in #2 actually reinforced each other.

By: Omar K. Ravenhurst

Omar K. Ravenhurst — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:54:18 +0000

But on another level, I don’t think that the boss/worker thing is an adequate metaphor”“men and women’s lives are more personally entwined than the lives of bosses and workers are.
Probably so.

“Actually,” the Senior Wrangler said, “apropos of nothing, you can get a scorpion to sting itsel-”
“Shut up,” said the Archchancellor, matter-of-factly.

But I think my conclusion applies in both cases.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:36:01 +0000

From an intellectual standpoint, I enjoy looking at how gender role playing affects both men and women. But on another level, I don’t think that the boss/worker thing is an adequate metaphor–men and women’s lives are more personally entwined than the lives of bosses and workers are. And I think gender roles tend to create distance in personal relationships between men and women–not just lovers or spouses, but sons, daughters, parents, friends, etc.–that are the cause of a great deal of pain for everyone involved and definitely make the problem of women’s oppression much, much worse. I think it’s a far more muddled problem.

By: Omar K. Ravenhurst

Omar K. Ravenhurst — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:57:55 +0000

People here asked if capitalism hurts bosses, too. Well, that seems like a reasonable question when it refers to the billionaire elite. Nobody needs more than a few million to live well, and I doubt even old-school Catholics need more than $10 mill to enrich their families. Having more money increases the threat of violence (e.g. kidnapping) to them and their families, unless they foster more paranoia than a Nethack player, and decreases the chance of any of them ever making a new friend. But capitalism and conservatism give this elite the power to rule us. It seems important to say this explicitly.