Thoughts on "patriarchy"

Feminists try to excuse their dismissal of men's issues as not as important, big, or impacting as women's issues on the claim that women are oppressed by "patriarchy," which in turn benefits all men. They conclude that men are never oppressed, discrimination against men isn't discrimination, and men who are abused don't suffer as much as women who are abused because all men have this phantom benefit to offset any suffering they might experience.

At the same time, feminists excuse their dismissal of the need for a men's rights movement by claiming that men's issues are caused by "patriarchy," and since feminism is fighting "patriarchy," feminism fights to make things better for men, because "patriarchy hurts men, too." They conclude from this that there is no need for a men's movement, because feminism has its function covered.

Putting the two side by side really makes their incompatibility obvious. If all men receive some suffering-eliminating benefit from "patriarchy," and therefore no men are oppressed, then "patriarchy hurts men, too" doesn't make sense. If "patriarchy" hurts men, too, then men's issues cannot be dismissed with "but 'patriarchy,' so women's issues are worse," because if "patriarchy" hurts both sexes, then its influence on women's experiences doesn't make them any worse than men's experiences, which feminists claim it also impacts.

These incompatible concepts really need to be addressed with feminists who use them as arguments against men's advocacy related to men's issues, not because feminists need to get their shit together and narrow it down to one argument, but because the fact that they do regularly throw both of them out there indicates that their objection to men's human rights advocacy is completely unrelated to its legitimacy - they're simply willing to say anything to shut MRAs up.

Effeminition: Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too

It seems to be one of their favorite battle cries: "Patriarchy hurts men, too!" When feminists say this, they think they're distancing themselves from the damage done to male society by laws and policies which give preferential treatment to women.

They're really not.

It's almost funny how the same group that says they've made a lot of progress, but there's still a long way to go, the same group that says laws giving preferential treatment to women are necessary to correct previous discriminatory conditions, fails to recognize that in lobbying for that preferential treatment, they're also responsible for the damage it does, especially in the hands of women who choose to abuse it.

Child custody is a prime example of this. Feminists will tell you that the belief that women are better parents, especially for younger children, is a notion imposed by "Patriarchy." That assertion is on a list that is being circulated and repeated by younger feminists in debate, without ever questioning its validity.
In fact, the assertion is dead wrong.
The legal presumption that women are naturally better caregivers, used as a determining factor in the decision of child custody, is rooted in a single feminist's mid 19th century activism. When Caroline Norton wrote the bill which would become The Custody of Infants Act of 1839, followed by her "plain" letter to the Lord Chancellor regarding the bill, she probably had no idea that her writing would end up as the inspiration for a court doctrine which would cause for fathers in multiple nations to suffer exactly the indignities she was trying to eliminate in her own life and the lives of other women, but that is what occurred. The Custody of Infants Act was the start of what is now referred to as the Tender Years Doctrine, the basis upon which it became traditional to place custody of children in divorcing families with the mother. The argument that mothers are better caregivers is put forth in Mrs. Norton's "plain" letter, in which she stated that fathers have to hire nursemaids to replace their wives' involvement in the lives of children during their "tender years," and therefore it is natural that the child should be placed in the custody of the mother. Over the years, this doctrine, originally intended to prevent divorce from keeping women from their children, has been pushed and twisted into an every-case imperative, making maternal custody the default in divorce cases.

It is interesting to note that some of the objections to the bill, addressed in Mrs. Norton's letter, have in the end turned out to be true, at least in the United States. With no checks in place to prevent female adultery, abandonment of marriage, or unwed motherhood, divorce and never-married single motherhood here have skyrocketed. Not that these are reasons why women should never have custody of their children, but it's apparent that if everything is arranged to make single parenthood attractive, a significant number of women will choose to be single mothers. As it stands, courts are backing them.
And while child abduction by mothers is not standard behavior, parental alienation has been enough of an issue that it's becoming common to place language in the divorce decree stating that each parent agrees not to slander the other to or in front of the children. Custodial interference is a fairly common behavior among custodial and primary residential mothers, as well.

Today, while some protesters claim that feminist groups do not want fathers to lose custody of their children, mainstream feminist lobbying groups have actively fought to prevent custody from being handled evenly, with genuinely shared custody as the default from which a case would begin.

This is one example, in which by tracing back, then returning to current activism, we can see how the system's discrimination against men has been in response to feminist activism, how feminists have actively fought to keep it that way, and the dysfunction which has resulted from the distance overboard they've gone with their fight. If you look at other areas, you'll see the same thing.

For the last 40 years, feminist advocates have (successfully) fought to impose their gender ideology on the issue of domestic violence, managing to deny assistance to approximately half of the victims of abuse.
Feminist advocated law and policy in the U.S. has whittled away at the due process rights of accused men, provided incentives to make false allegations, and made restraining order abuse easy to commit, and hard to counter.

They've advocated for laws which remove the presumption of innocence from men accused of rape. The handicapping of an accused man's defense makes false conviction a significant risk for men in the U.S., keeping organizations like The Innocence Project busy undoing the damage done by a severely imbalanced, heavily biased legal system.
Feminists have advocated for federally required changes in disciplinary policy at colleges and universities which have led an environment that encourages and enables the leveling of false allegations of sexual violence against men on college and university campuses in the U.S.  

Feminists will tell you time and again that your issues are rooted in the dominant power of men whose station is above yours. The argument seems justified on the surface, when you look at the individuals who seem to be keeping you down - male legislators, male judges, police, and government bureaucrats. However, when you hear the term Patriarchy, and you know the individual shouting it at you is talking about the legal and political structure, remember that these groups act on outside motivators. Patriarchy as feminism defines it is nothing more than a puppet responding to the group it finds most persuasive. When feminist advocates, who have been actively lobbying against your rights and your freedom for over a century tell you that puppet is the one who is holding you down, remember who is pulling its strings, and who really benefits the most from keeping the power structure exactly the way it is right now.

On feminist denial of biological differences between the sexes

This is one of the ways in which feminism handicaps everyone. In advocating the social and legal enforcement of the denial of human biology, feminist activism creates a stifling and oppressive environment for human interaction. We cannot treat each other as equal humans if we confuse equal with identical. As soon as we allow that misconception to be layered over our handling of interaction, we force ourselves to choose between conflicting responses. Do we accept the perception of unequal treatment, as real, existing differences conflict with ideology which denies them? Do we enforce unequal treatment as we try to use artificial means to make up for the differences we're expected to deny?    
   
This, in turn, dramatically hampers the ability of the sexes to work together in team situations, by discouraging the recognition and use of strengths, and the recognition and transcendence of weaknesses... because we're not supposed to notice that most often, those strengths and weaknesses do run along gender lines. Feminist advocacy then further complicates the issue by compromising its own position in the most hypocritical fashion, refusing men the honesty of admitting that these differences exist when it would facilitate positive outcomes for men, but insisting upon highlighting those same differences when it would facilitate desired outcomes for women. Examples of the denial range from high impact hypocrisy such as the refusal to admit in the context of the work/pay discussion that overall, men are more heavy-labor capable, to lower impact obfuscation such as the "men never ask for directions" lament, which ignores the ability of men to utilize the more reliable tool available to them - a map. Examples of the highlighting range from the legally impacting claim of female inability to defend the self or escape in a domestic conflict, or the perceived inability of a woman to verbally communicate "no" when confronted with unwanted sexual advances, to subtle man-bashing jokes about lack of male empathy or the more observable state of men's reflexive responses, a socially accepted generalization.
  
By enforcing the false denial of an existing set of factors, and then manipulatively enforcing the exclusion of specific circumstances from that system of denial, feminist ideology impairs men's ability to relate to women. When physical differences affect interaction between opposite sexes, the man is put into a catch-22; he is not permitted to acknowledge or notice the difference, yet he is required to accommodate or defer to it. He may not treat the woman as less capable of performing heavy labor, yet he must make up for the heavy labor she does not perform. He may not treat the woman as more physically fragile, yet he is required to refrain from subjecting her to the level of physical testing to which he is accustomed. He is expected to display feminine empathy, while simultaneously crediting the woman with greater empathic intuition. He may not ascribe to her any level of caregiving capability, but he is not permitted to usurp her assumed right to claim superior caregiver status. How can one form a cooperative connection when the rule is that whatever one does is wrong? Where is the role to be filled, and how does one fit into it?

To women, the same attitude of systemic denial acts as a personal growth barrier.
In order to achieve personal growth, one must first be capable of discerning and assessing one's existing advantages and shortcomings. Self-improvement depends on the practice, honing, and benevolent exploitation of strengths, and attention to weaknesses with a focus on reducing or overcoming them. If one is expected by one's peers to ignore the influence of one's sex on those characteristics, it becomes rather difficult to address them. Do we admit to, and make use of, any stereotypically female virtues if in doing so we're betraying those who claim the right to pretend those virtues are not feminine? Do we admit to and strive to overcome stereotypically female faults if in doing so we're foisting that stereotype onto other women? By treating the acknowledgement that biological factors which affect human characteristics can fall along gender lines as a sexist attack on women, feminist advocacy robs women of the opportunity to be our better selves. We're asked to sacrifice our individual progress to feed the political power of the movement.

Of the many ways in which this unwritten order manifests itself, nothing is more damaging than the mandate of willful helplessness and the victim charge. The social advancement of the female sex should be dependent upon building a belief in our ability to overcome obstacles, our choice to embrace responsibility and own it, and our tendency to survive adversity and come back having sharpened ourselves for the next challenge.  
Go ahead, life. Make my day.

Instead, feminist advocacy tells the general population to expect us to fail. It says that when faced with confrontation, we aren't tough enough to stand up for ourselves. When faced with academic challenges, we aren't smart enough to compete. When faced with competition, we aren't determined enough to win. When faced with a bad situation, we aren't independent enough to escape. When we get knocked down, we aren't resilient enough get back up and keep going. We must have reparations. We must have concessions. Feminist hypocrisy says that though men must treat us as successful achievers, we cannot attain that condition on our own.

This rides on the treatment of the concepts Greatness, Success and Achievement as having only male characteristics, and assigning negativity to characteristics traditionally considered female. A woman who does great things without acting like a man cannot be recognized for her accomplishments without compromising the feminist "alike" concept of nondiscrimination.

When physical differences affect interaction between opposite sexes, the woman is put into a catch-22; she is not permitted to acknowledge or notice the difference, yet she is often expected to use it as a crutch. How can one form a cooperative connection when the rule is that one must ignore one's nature? Where is the role to be filled, and how does one fit into it?

It is not male sexism which refuses to place equally high value upon a great caregiver and a great scientist. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting upon identical, rather than equal standards to those of men, emphasizing the nature of the job over the quality of the work. It is not male sexism which condemns female sexual freedom. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting on treating sexual gratification as a commodity, and women who don't keep it guarded as scabs in a perpetual strike. It is not male sexism which holds women inside dysfunctional and damaging relationships. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting upon assuming the position of victim for the purpose of exploiting the power of blame.

A woman's greatest disability is in feeling obligated to hold to the feminist standard of being dominated, and feminism's greatest dependence is on the laywoman never figuring that out. When we know that we don't have to lay down and cry for help instead of living our own lives... when we realize that the phantom oppression to which feminist leaders claim we're still subjected after over a hundred years of radical activism is not real... we are free to determine the courses of our own lives, define success for ourselves, and reject the controls imposed upon us by the only system of oppression we have left: Matriarchy.