Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Why Do People Hate #Feminism？ #2 - The Patriarchy

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 1, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

22:28

Why Do People Hate #Feminism？ #2 - The Patriarchy

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women six months ago.
	And the more I've spoken about feminism, the more I have realized that fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating.
	And my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
	Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one?
	Welcome to part two of why does everyone hate feminism?
	As we saw in part one, the first reason that people hate feminism is that feminists hate men.
	And they hate men because of something they call the patriarchy.
	Of course, before we can go any further, we need to define our terms.
	What is a patriarchy?
	Now, any normal person would probably go and look for the standard English definition.
	So when a feminist says to the uninitiated that we live in a patriarchy, they're thinking that a patriarchy is a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan or tribe, and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
	And by the second definition, this produces a society, community or country based on this social organization.
	This is going to sound quite counterintuitive to anyone who lives in the Western world, and they'll probably take to Google to see if they can find any kind of evidence to corroborate the feminist assertion that we live in a patriarchy.
	The first thing that they're going to discover is that marriage rates are sharply on the decline.
	Young people are simply not getting married.
	The next thing they'll discover is that over a quarter of families are single-parent households, and the overwhelming majority of these households, over two-thirds of them, will be led by single mothers.
	They'll probably also discover that women control approximately 20% of the US government, with 20% of the seats in Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
	And they'll find that in the world of business, the number of Fortune 500 companies that have women CEOs is higher than it's ever been.
	Admittedly, 24 female CEOs make up 4.8% of the overall total isn't a massive amount, but it really makes the point that there are no institutional barriers to prevent women from arriving at the top spot in a company.
	In fact, in the business and financial worlds, it's been widely known that women control the money in the United States, holding 60% of all personal wealth and 51% of all stocks, with over 1.3 million women earning over $100,000 plus annually and running 40% of all private American businesses.
	But in addition to this, women control the household finances as well, with women making 75 to 78% of household purchases as of 2009.
	So when the average person returns to their definition of patriarchy as a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan or tribe and dissent is reckoned in the male line with children belonging to the father's clan or tribe, they're wondering, what the fuck are feminists talking about?
	Why don't we ask some?
	I was having breakfast in the bustling restaurant of my hotel in Hong Kong.
	A typhoon had swept through the city and the skies were still stormy.
	Leaping through the South China Morning Post, an opinion piece caught my eye.
	It said that many Chinese government officials have young mistresses.
	They are called little thirds, signalling vast differences of age and power.
	These young lovers are supposedly ticking time bombs, exposing corruption when jilted.
	I posted a tweet about it, adding the hashtag patriarchy.
	I remember that moment with stinging pain.
	Just hours before arriving in Hong Kong for a conference, I had filed for divorce, ending in a day and a half a marriage that had lasted a decade and a half.
	I remember looking out over the wet foliage of the lush hotel gardens, the rattle of my teacup, the rustle of the newspaper, and most of all I remember that word as I typed it on my iPhone.
	Patriarchy.
	I had mistaken the immense betrayal that had unfolded in my life, the little third I had not known about, as infidelity.
	That was not it.
	It was patriarchy.
	Like me, you're probably confused as to what this clearly privileged woman is talking about.
	Patriarchy is her husband cheating on her, I think.
	Maybe we should ask someone else.
	Feminists blame everything on patriarchy and that people think that's false and that they can't blame everything on patriarchy and that's just their fallback, that they just go to that and you can't ever argue with them because it's always about patriarchy, you can't argue that.
	So I'm going to try to actually defend these feminists and say that basically, yeah, everything kind of does, everything kind of can be blamed on the patriarchy.
	Okay, so patriarchy seems to have a subjective definition for each feminist who is using it, and it seems to be omnipresent.
	Everything in society can be blamed on the quote-unquote patriarchy.
	In fact, it rather sounds like feminists are talking about society itself.
	So for those of you who live under a rock, the patriarchy is essentially this idea that men have the power in society.
	And feminists essentially want to eradicate that and make everybody equal.
	Okay, this is more specific, even if it does raise more questions.
	But at least we can be sure that we're not talking about any known dictionary definition of patriarchy.
	So at this point, we are six and a half minutes into this video, and we are still not really sure what feminists are talking about when they're talking about patriarchy.
	And that is honestly because feminists aren't sure what they're talking about when they're talking about patriarchy.
	Dear feminists, can you see why people are getting pissed off with your ideology?
	So the most direct description of patriarchy I found was on everydayfeminism.com, where they say, although most of us know what a patriarchy is, a system of domination by the wealthy white male ruling class that has authority over everyone else, few of us understand how it plays out in our everyday lives.
	This definition is wonderfully concise and tells us absolutely everything we need to know about the feminist perception of the patriarchy, or at least this feminist's perception of the patriarchy.
	This definition has a decidedly Marxist slant.
	The wealthy white males are now considered a ruling class that has authority over everyone else.
	But as we've already seen, this definition completely ignores women who command political and economic power, of which there is no small number.
	So finally, let's try Wikipedia.
	Maybe they have some kind of definition of patriarchy that we can use.
	A definition that actually reflects reality.
	So the Wikipedia article sums up feminist theory as defining patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.
	This isn't really that much help either.
	Apart from the enforcing of gender roles, which, okay, that is a distinct and concrete thing we can cling to, saying that it is oppressive to both men and women, it introduces another nebulous term which is probably not accurate and will never hear the feminist definition of.
	The article does at least have the grace to say in feminist theory, the concept of patriarchy is fluid and loosely defined.
	So returning to our everyday feminism article, which is the one that had the most precise definition of patriarchy that we've had so far, they say that you may think of patriarchy as something that existed a long time ago in the United States, during the days of the Puritans, when women were the property of their husbands and were being accused of witchcraft and hanged.
	Well, I'm no expert, but that sounds a lot more like a patriarchy to me instead of a civilization where women have the freedom to become CEOs and politicians.
	But apparently patriarchy still exists, and like racism, it often manifests in casual ways that tend to go unnoticed by the majority of people.
	Which is a bizarre statement to make in itself.
	How could a patriarchy be subtle?
	It enforces gender roles.
	It ensures domination of women by men.
	Not just how, but why?
	Would it operate and manifest in casual ways that tend to go unnoticed?
	But this I find to be the most revealing statement.
	And women aren't the only ones who suffer under patriarchy.
	Everyone does, because patriarchy demands that those in power conform to a specific set of rules.
	Ones that require the suppression of feelings and include a lack of empathy.
	They go on to say that patriarchy demands that those being ruled play by a certain set of rules as well.
	They are the controlled ones.
	While they are allowed to show emotion, they cannot step outside of their prescribed boxes.
	They are not allowed to act assertive, Lee, or attempt to gain authority.
	And as we've seen, that simply doesn't apply to women, so this seems to be complete nonsense.
	Since patriarchy has such fluid definitions, we'll just explore another one quickly.
	This one says that the patriarchy is a socio-political and cultural system that values masculinity over femininity.
	Now, that is an interesting statement, and we'll return to it in a minute.
	So what have we actually learned about the patriarchy?
	We know that it's got nothing to do with the common English definition of the word.
	We know that feminists are unable to accurately and consistently define the patriarchy.
	Nevertheless, they think the patriarchy is pervasive and omnipresent.
	They also think they know what the patriarchy wants.
	We know that the patriarchy is not preventing women from attaining money, power or status.
	And despite this, rich and powerful women are affected by the patriarchy.
	The patriarchy is content to affect women in ways varying from very severe to utterly trivial.
	And the patriarchy is very concerned with gender roles.
	The patriarchy appears to be concerned with class conflict, primarily between the bourgeois male and the proletariat female.
	And the patriarchy is a system designed to benefit and privilege masculinity above femininity.
	And as such, the patriarchy oppresses women.
	But for some reason, the patriarchy also oppresses men.
	And finally, the patriarchy can be blamed for everything.
	Just looking at this list of absurd, mutually contradictory statements makes it very clear as to why the patriarchy is a joke amongst non-feminists.
	Yeah, let's take a shot, man.
	Batter up.
	harder, man.
	You're not killing patriarchy at all.
	What are you, a liberal?
	Anyway, modern feminism has discovered that we are now beyond patriarchy.
	We are, in fact, fighting something called the kyriarchy.
	So apparently, if you're familiar with feminism, you'll have heard of the term patriarchy.
	Well, of course you will have done.
	The social order that privileges men and oppresses women, while also oppressing men.
	It's a useful term as it gives a name to the institutionalization of male privilege.
	And again, we'll come to this in a minute.
	Because feminism has moved on from being purely concerned with male privilege.
	We're about to learn about intersectional feminism.
	We now thankfully and rightfully take into account the number of different privileges and oppressions that people experience.
	Intersectional feminism is concerned with the social order that privileges and oppresses people based on race, gender, language, class, sexual orientation, disability, culture, and so on.
	Intersectional feminism tells us that oppression comes in many different forms.
	Someone is not simply oppressed or privileged.
	We can be simultaneously privileged and oppressed by different aspects of our identities.
	For example, someone can be privileged by the fact that they are cisgender, thin and white, while being oppressed by the fact that they are queer, disabled and female.
	I don't mean to laugh, but they are putting the fact that someone's homosexual and female in the same category as being disabled.
	Anyway, because of all this, we need a word to describe the complex social order that keeps these intersecting impressions in place.
	This has become necessary for feminist thinkers, because for example, the theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men do not have control over white women.
	Don't they?
	God damn, I have waited a long time for an opportunity to use this image.
	Anyway, Kyriarchy acknowledges that gender-based oppression is not the only type of oppression that exists.
	And unlike the term patriarchy, which only refers to institutionalized sexism, Kyriarchy covers all forms of inequality.
	To achieve true, full equality, we need to tackle the systemic oppression of all groups of people.
	It acknowledges that one can both benefit from and be oppressed by the system.
	For example, gay rights activism in my country, presumably the United States, particularly has a history of being exclusive of people of colour and poorer people.
	It is also true of mainstream feminism, which has traditionally excluded trans people, as well as women of colour.
	The movement has attempted to challenge the oppression of one group of people while throwing another group of people under the bus, so to speak.
	This demonstrates that a movement can simultaneously challenge oppression and be oppressive.
	It could suggest why so many oppressed people are complicit in their own oppression.
	Studying Kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich white Christian men at the tip top, and personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous.
	There's a hell of a lot of people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down.
	Note, that would not result in equality.
	And number five, it acknowledges that oppressions are interlinked.
	And so the use of the term kyriarchy is therefore better as it demands we take other forms of oppression into account as well as the privileges.
	What the feminists have finally discovered in discovering the kyriarchy can be summed up in the phrase, you take the rough with the smooth, otherwise known to everyone else on earth as real life.
	Yes, in some ways you will have disadvantages.
	Yes, in other ways you will have advantages.
	Yes, you may well not enjoy some of the things you have to do, but you will enjoy some of the other things that you are able to do.
	Frankly, you are bitching and moaning about living in the first world because everything isn't sunshine and roses.
	And how many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on academic, quote-unquote, educations and how many man hours, sorry, woman hours, have been wasted to come to the conclusion that, well, it's good sometimes and it's bad other times.
	People are all different and they all have different life circumstances.
	So let us return to our definition of patriarchy that says it is a socio-political and cultural system that values masculinity over femininity.
	So I decided to examine the veracity of this by looking for a list of masculine traits and feminine traits from a source I could trust to be pro-feminist.
	The most comprehensive list I could find was from Planned Parenthood, who I think are a satisfactory source for pro-feminist literature.
	So according to them, words most commonly used to describe, say, femininity are dependent, emotional, passive, sensitive, quiet, graceful, innocent, weak, flirtatious, nurturing, self-critical, soft, sexually submissive, and accepting.
	And their words to commonly describe masculinity are independent, non-emotional, aggressive, tough-skinned, competitive, clumsy, experienced, strong, active, self-confident, hard, sexually aggressive, and rebellious.
	Now, let me introduce you to a feminist called Camille Palia.
	Camille Palia, by title, professor of humanities at Philadelphia's University of the Arts.
	By growing reputation, the scourge of American feminism.
	By self-assessment, America's leading female intellectual.
	If there's truth in that, it began to emerge in 1990 with the publication of Sexual Personae, an historical analysis of literature and art, which, among other things, hailed the male capacity for creativity, praised much of the classic Western European and American literary canon currently out of favor with many academics, and most provocatively, accepted, in fact trumpeted, the premise that sexual stereotypes spring from basic truths.
	She considers herself a passionate feminist, a champion of opportunity, individuality, and choice, but contends that modern feminism has fast descended into dogma, intolerance, and male-bashing.
	It's a very interesting introduction, isn't it?
	Let's see what she has to say.
	And thanks for staying up later.
	Here is the so-called scourge of modern feminism, Camille Paglia.
	Recently, you told Charlie Rose that your aim is nothing less than the complete destruction of the glorious Steinem wing of modern feminism.
	Want to explain?
	Well, I think that current feminism began laudably 20 years ago, but quickly got off track into man-bashing and a kind of weepy whiny white middle-class ideology.
	And I'm simply trying to bring back the great feminism of the 20s and 30s of Catherine Hepard and Amelia Earhart, a feminism that stresses independence, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and not blaming other people for your problems.
	What Camille is describing would otherwise be known as a good work ethic.
	She is describing a personality type that would fulfill the potential of the person who displayed it.
	Because ultimately, the world is a meritocracy.
	Results matter because results produce money.
	And realistically, nothing else matters but money.
	So if we are in a system that values masculinity over femininity, it is because we are in a system in which masculinity produces results, but femininity does not.
	And results are all that matters.
	Which is a point that Camille herself makes so eloquently.
	Right, well, one of my most inflammatory statements in sexual persona was, if civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.
	And given the state of the existing matriarchies, I think she's absolutely right.
	For example, the Musau tribe of China, a member of whom is pictured here performing agriculture with a hand tool.
	And the Khasi people of northern India, who live in a state of such abject impoverishment that people visit them to marvel at the lack of trash.
	These are what matriarchies look like.
	These are the end results of systems that privilege femininity over masculinity.
	One of the myriad reasons that people hate feminism is because they know that when you complain about the patriarchy, you are complaining about the meritocracy.
	You are complaining about a system that allows anyone who works hard, anyone with the predisposition to produce results, to rise to the top, where they rightfully belong.
	Yes, it is a difficult system.
	Yes, it requires things of you.
	And yes, men may well be more predisposed towards hard work than women.
	They ultimately don't really have any other option.
	But look at what it produces.
	The reason that women defend it is because it is such a good and productive system.
	And feminists who complain that they are quote unquote oppressed by this system because the system quote privileges masculinity over femininity is because the people who are displaying the masculine traits are the ones who are getting results.

▲