What utter bs, the idea that feminists don’t want to end patriarchy. 2nd wave feminist here, who would be absolutely delighted to see patriarchy seriously diminished, if a collapse isn’t possible. Nothing would please me more than to see feminism lose its raison d’être.
Neither I nor the thinkers I referenced (Žižek, Lacan) are postmodernists—so is this just a vague way to dismiss what you don’t like or don’t understand?
Nicely written, I’d forgotten the dualism for this,
There are innumerable categories of ideas which are partition ideas - they only exist by declaring a separation. A classic is theism/atheism - atheists hate to be told their identity is based entirely on the concept of religion, it is a dual to religion. If your life is based on being one one side, as you point out you can never back out. The alternative is to realize that the impact of the system of sex-based powers has gone the way of atheism/theism or British/vs Irish, a distinction without any real difference anymore
I really like the "partition" image. Concepts or beliefs that can only persist in oppostion mode. Theism/atheism is a great analogy. If your identity or political framework is structured around opposition, then the obstacle is existential to it.
Yep, the impact of historical sex-based power structures has changed drastically, but The Patriarchy—as both a master and empty signifier—blocks moving beyond the partition. Letting go pushes one into a zone without clear coordinates aka freedom??
Not sure what you mean by the "partition" idea, but I recognise it from having started to call myself a "sex realist" when I got fed up with labelling myself only in relation to the opposition, as "gender critical". Like giving up before you've started...
Even though "realists" imply fantasists, it doesn't let fantasists stake out the whole planet as "gender identity" territory: but restricts the issue to a mental / cultural battlefield where sex remains central.
Defining yourself by what you are not might be legitimate in some circumstances: but it usually says very little about what you are.
And the British vs. Irish issue got a whole new lease of life via Brexit: involving boundaries, trade, treaties etc.
I call ideas which define by creating boundaries partitioning - men and women are partitions of humans.
By contrast “blue” is not defined in opposition to other colors, or particularly by partition, it can be a wavelength of light - around 500nm - or a combination of color (green - yellow). Blue is a spectrum of colors and mixtures.
Sex realism to me is just sex.
Gender is a fantasy, and the word exists to blur and confuse the partition of humans by sex into men and women.
Similarly the word queer is used to blur the distinction between heterosexual or lesbian and gay sex acts.
I remember a saying from my long ago youth: “the mother’s baby; the father’s…maybe.” For me, this is patriarchy in a nutshell - the why of it all. And the saying absolutely does acknowledge reproductive asymmetry - the reason reproduction must be regulated. Is “The Patriarchy” simply about the regulation of reproduction?
This is exactly what I mean. Your go-to immediate condescending snark of a type that is so recognizable: "oh what sad little creatures you feminists are. How did it make you FEEEEEEEELLLLLL little critter? Why don't you "free associate" since you are incapable of rationality?"
the fondness for psychoanalyzing women who have found one another, and who have developed a shared language for describing the experience of getting the shit end of the stick, is classic. "They sure have some mental hangups, what an absolute sad little mess they are, they'll never get anywhere the pathetic poor dears" (hostile rage disguised as dripping condescension)
As is: "oh if they resist my analysis that just shows how right I am", my god, take at least one of your hands off Freud's dick.
I understand YOU perfectly. I just don't get what Jennifer Bilek likes about this essay.
Tara's snark appeared to equal your own, Kathleen, except yours was more stealth, while hers was direct.
I love the essay for its humor. It is terribly (in the good way) sardonic, and cutting, in a way that breaks through years of entrenched, habitual feminist behavior which reduces, and nearly never addresses, women's advances, and the complex technological and economic issues that set men and women apart.
The BIG blob of "The Patriarchy" is used as short hand - or should I say a short club, to coerce dialogue and thought, just as your remark did here (You can't imagine why I would publish this essay). No dialogue necessary (where have I heard this before?), no inquiry.
The essay apparently pissed you off. Good. Let it be the start of more of the same, because feminists have been getting away with using "The Patriarchy" as a stealth weapon, a crutch, an excuse for not addressing complexities, for too long. I've been guilty of it myself, though less and less over the years.
Having followed the money in politics for over a decade and the wealthy men and women driving gender ideology into our environment, and calling all the shots, I know the bulk of all our problems is wealth disparity. I used to use the hashtag, "It's Capitalism, Stupid," whenever posting on social media. I rarely hear women talking about technological and economic advancement and how they have impacted women for good and bad, though I have been writing about all this for over a decade. I hear "misogyny," and "patriarchy," wielded around like harpoons though, ALL. THE. TIME, marginalizing the work women are doing to effect change for other women, because people recognize these terms have long reached their sell-by date. They are reductive.
It is time to stop relying on "The Patriarchy," to do the heavy lifting of addressing complexities that go way beyond "male domination." "The Patriarchy," used in this way, whitewashes women's responsibilities, the power we wield, and the way it homogenizes cultural differences.
I can take the shade feminists are throwing because I have no interest in being popular, or sewn to a movement that has atrophied because it is still standing in the 1970s without updating its analysis, mantras, or messages. For as much as they hate it, the piece is getting broad exposure among others (feminists and not) and many appreciate its intelligence, its humor, and boldness.
Your stealth condescension, was exhibited in your initial comment, not the following one, where it was clear.
Tara has explained, "The essay argues that The Patriarchy isn’t just a descriptive term for male power but a structuring fantasy that feminism relies on to sustain itself. If feminism—or women’s liberation—is to move forward in addressing sex-based struggles, then perhaps it’s worth reconsidering whether The Patriarchy (and its synonyms) is a useful, or even necessary, framework."
The fact she got your attention and that of many other women and men, is very good. Perhaps, her frustration, at listening to women use "The Patriarchy" in this way for eons now, is the reason she chose to be sardonic in writing it. There is no monolithic patriarchy. For me, her humor gave it the edge it needed. I saw myself just ten short years ago in every line, but was able to laugh too. Women's work is being terribly wasted by a propensity to blame "male dominance" for everything, instead of having the conversations about complex intersections that could move us forward. As an explanation about what is happening to the human race, "The Patriarchy," has, imo, reached its sell-by date. It's time for broader conversations. I'm glad she wrote the piece, accepted my invitation to put it on the blog, and that it is resonating for a lot of people. I hope she continues to expand her arguments for us.
Sorry to join this discussion late, just reached it from a link to another post. As I am about to turn 83, I am old enough to have observed the feminism discussion evolve over the decades as my wife mated to be both a feminist and a wonderful mothers to our two daughters, who both grew up to life very independent lives and recognized no limits on their ability to pursue those lives. Unfortunately, while recognizing them inherent problems resulting form any generalizations, the term patriarchy as its opponent has often become-so misused that it is either ignored or actually viewed as meaningless , as have the terms racism and recently the revival of the accusation of Naziism. I and most of my friends when they hear such terms used to describe behavior that is dimply condemned by the person using the epithet. My reaction is usually a tired “ there they go again….”
My earliest brush with feminism was as the daughter of a woman who did not want children. As a feminist, she said she "hated men": and "hating men" was what she understood "feminism" to be about.
I thought this was a terrible idea. Perhaps partly because I loathed the frequent conflict between my parents, which "hatiing men" seemed to require. Though I was also very scared of my mother who so often exploded in anger at me -- when she noticed me at all. And I grew to hate her: though this was far too dangerous to express.
So far as I was concerned, "real" feminism meant being FOR WOMEN: something positive, not negative: not defined by an external enemy -- the Other: though such Others also clearly existed, and were most often men. But some of them were women.
So in my view, my mother not a "feminist" at all -- though she thought she was. Or else she was the worst possible example: the kind of "feminist" that gave feminism a bad name.
And I hardly ever resort to using the term "patriarchy" -- because this portmanteau term seems lazy, is too easily written off as a hackneyed generalisation, and is too much used by feminists who could with some effort be a lot more targeted in their objections to specific forms of oppressive social structures and systems.
Its blanket use for explaining away all our problems also too easily exonerates all the handmaidens who find it convenient to go along with structures and systems that oppress women.
While you say you reject much of the thesis, you actually confirm many of its key points—especially about The Patriarchy functioning as a catch-all concept that blocks deeper analysis.
Your experience highlights one of the central contradictions of feminism: it often positions itself as for women but in practice, many feminists define their politics primarily *against men*.
Yes I accept many of the points about use of the term "patriarchy" being too often a thought-stopping cliche. But on the whole I think you are using a straw woman argument: as most feminists are far too entangled in trying to sort out specific knotty interactions of biology, acculturation and economics, for the overarching term "patriarchy" to have any use.
And we got to this point long before learning about the existence or theories of Jacques Lacan: interesting though they may be.
What utter bs, the idea that feminists don’t want to end patriarchy. 2nd wave feminist here, who would be absolutely delighted to see patriarchy seriously diminished, if a collapse isn’t possible. Nothing would please me more than to see feminism lose its raison d’être.
Insightful. Can't see where this is wrong.
this is pure bilge. I thought we'd got past postmodern sophism.
What exactly was “postmodern sophism”?
Neither I nor the thinkers I referenced (Žižek, Lacan) are postmodernists—so is this just a vague way to dismiss what you don’t like or don’t understand?
Nicely written, I’d forgotten the dualism for this,
There are innumerable categories of ideas which are partition ideas - they only exist by declaring a separation. A classic is theism/atheism - atheists hate to be told their identity is based entirely on the concept of religion, it is a dual to religion. If your life is based on being one one side, as you point out you can never back out. The alternative is to realize that the impact of the system of sex-based powers has gone the way of atheism/theism or British/vs Irish, a distinction without any real difference anymore
I really like the "partition" image. Concepts or beliefs that can only persist in oppostion mode. Theism/atheism is a great analogy. If your identity or political framework is structured around opposition, then the obstacle is existential to it.
Yep, the impact of historical sex-based power structures has changed drastically, but The Patriarchy—as both a master and empty signifier—blocks moving beyond the partition. Letting go pushes one into a zone without clear coordinates aka freedom??
Appreciate the thoughtful engagement!
Not sure what you mean by the "partition" idea, but I recognise it from having started to call myself a "sex realist" when I got fed up with labelling myself only in relation to the opposition, as "gender critical". Like giving up before you've started...
Even though "realists" imply fantasists, it doesn't let fantasists stake out the whole planet as "gender identity" territory: but restricts the issue to a mental / cultural battlefield where sex remains central.
Defining yourself by what you are not might be legitimate in some circumstances: but it usually says very little about what you are.
And the British vs. Irish issue got a whole new lease of life via Brexit: involving boundaries, trade, treaties etc.
I call ideas which define by creating boundaries partitioning - men and women are partitions of humans.
By contrast “blue” is not defined in opposition to other colors, or particularly by partition, it can be a wavelength of light - around 500nm - or a combination of color (green - yellow). Blue is a spectrum of colors and mixtures.
Sex realism to me is just sex.
Gender is a fantasy, and the word exists to blur and confuse the partition of humans by sex into men and women.
Similarly the word queer is used to blur the distinction between heterosexual or lesbian and gay sex acts.
I remember a saying from my long ago youth: “the mother’s baby; the father’s…maybe.” For me, this is patriarchy in a nutshell - the why of it all. And the saying absolutely does acknowledge reproductive asymmetry - the reason reproduction must be regulated. Is “The Patriarchy” simply about the regulation of reproduction?
Jennifer Bilek chose this guest essay to feature on her stack? I am genuinely perplexed.
How else did it make you feel? Feel free to free associate.
This is exactly what I mean. Your go-to immediate condescending snark of a type that is so recognizable: "oh what sad little creatures you feminists are. How did it make you FEEEEEEEELLLLLL little critter? Why don't you "free associate" since you are incapable of rationality?"
the fondness for psychoanalyzing women who have found one another, and who have developed a shared language for describing the experience of getting the shit end of the stick, is classic. "They sure have some mental hangups, what an absolute sad little mess they are, they'll never get anywhere the pathetic poor dears" (hostile rage disguised as dripping condescension)
As is: "oh if they resist my analysis that just shows how right I am", my god, take at least one of your hands off Freud's dick.
I understand YOU perfectly. I just don't get what Jennifer Bilek likes about this essay.
Tara's snark appeared to equal your own, Kathleen, except yours was more stealth, while hers was direct.
I love the essay for its humor. It is terribly (in the good way) sardonic, and cutting, in a way that breaks through years of entrenched, habitual feminist behavior which reduces, and nearly never addresses, women's advances, and the complex technological and economic issues that set men and women apart.
The BIG blob of "The Patriarchy" is used as short hand - or should I say a short club, to coerce dialogue and thought, just as your remark did here (You can't imagine why I would publish this essay). No dialogue necessary (where have I heard this before?), no inquiry.
The essay apparently pissed you off. Good. Let it be the start of more of the same, because feminists have been getting away with using "The Patriarchy" as a stealth weapon, a crutch, an excuse for not addressing complexities, for too long. I've been guilty of it myself, though less and less over the years.
Having followed the money in politics for over a decade and the wealthy men and women driving gender ideology into our environment, and calling all the shots, I know the bulk of all our problems is wealth disparity. I used to use the hashtag, "It's Capitalism, Stupid," whenever posting on social media. I rarely hear women talking about technological and economic advancement and how they have impacted women for good and bad, though I have been writing about all this for over a decade. I hear "misogyny," and "patriarchy," wielded around like harpoons though, ALL. THE. TIME, marginalizing the work women are doing to effect change for other women, because people recognize these terms have long reached their sell-by date. They are reductive.
It is time to stop relying on "The Patriarchy," to do the heavy lifting of addressing complexities that go way beyond "male domination." "The Patriarchy," used in this way, whitewashes women's responsibilities, the power we wield, and the way it homogenizes cultural differences.
I can take the shade feminists are throwing because I have no interest in being popular, or sewn to a movement that has atrophied because it is still standing in the 1970s without updating its analysis, mantras, or messages. For as much as they hate it, the piece is getting broad exposure among others (feminists and not) and many appreciate its intelligence, its humor, and boldness.
I did not mean to be stealthy. I thought I was loud and clear. This essay drips contempt for a huge contingent of feminist women
I am surprised it resonates with you
If you think about the long long long history of appropriating the reproductive powers of women’s bodies to the service of empire building
Which predates capitalism and transhumanism by thousands of years
Tell us ninnies what word we should use for thinking or talking about it while we wallow in misdirected desire like the big sillies that we are
Please and thanks
Your stealth condescension, was exhibited in your initial comment, not the following one, where it was clear.
Tara has explained, "The essay argues that The Patriarchy isn’t just a descriptive term for male power but a structuring fantasy that feminism relies on to sustain itself. If feminism—or women’s liberation—is to move forward in addressing sex-based struggles, then perhaps it’s worth reconsidering whether The Patriarchy (and its synonyms) is a useful, or even necessary, framework."
The fact she got your attention and that of many other women and men, is very good. Perhaps, her frustration, at listening to women use "The Patriarchy" in this way for eons now, is the reason she chose to be sardonic in writing it. There is no monolithic patriarchy. For me, her humor gave it the edge it needed. I saw myself just ten short years ago in every line, but was able to laugh too. Women's work is being terribly wasted by a propensity to blame "male dominance" for everything, instead of having the conversations about complex intersections that could move us forward. As an explanation about what is happening to the human race, "The Patriarchy," has, imo, reached its sell-by date. It's time for broader conversations. I'm glad she wrote the piece, accepted my invitation to put it on the blog, and that it is resonating for a lot of people. I hope she continues to expand her arguments for us.
Sorry to join this discussion late, just reached it from a link to another post. As I am about to turn 83, I am old enough to have observed the feminism discussion evolve over the decades as my wife mated to be both a feminist and a wonderful mothers to our two daughters, who both grew up to life very independent lives and recognized no limits on their ability to pursue those lives. Unfortunately, while recognizing them inherent problems resulting form any generalizations, the term patriarchy as its opponent has often become-so misused that it is either ignored or actually viewed as meaningless , as have the terms racism and recently the revival of the accusation of Naziism. I and most of my friends when they hear such terms used to describe behavior that is dimply condemned by the person using the epithet. My reaction is usually a tired “ there they go again….”
My earliest brush with feminism was as the daughter of a woman who did not want children. As a feminist, she said she "hated men": and "hating men" was what she understood "feminism" to be about.
I thought this was a terrible idea. Perhaps partly because I loathed the frequent conflict between my parents, which "hatiing men" seemed to require. Though I was also very scared of my mother who so often exploded in anger at me -- when she noticed me at all. And I grew to hate her: though this was far too dangerous to express.
So far as I was concerned, "real" feminism meant being FOR WOMEN: something positive, not negative: not defined by an external enemy -- the Other: though such Others also clearly existed, and were most often men. But some of them were women.
So in my view, my mother not a "feminist" at all -- though she thought she was. Or else she was the worst possible example: the kind of "feminist" that gave feminism a bad name.
And I hardly ever resort to using the term "patriarchy" -- because this portmanteau term seems lazy, is too easily written off as a hackneyed generalisation, and is too much used by feminists who could with some effort be a lot more targeted in their objections to specific forms of oppressive social structures and systems.
Its blanket use for explaining away all our problems also too easily exonerates all the handmaidens who find it convenient to go along with structures and systems that oppress women.
So I reject much of the thesis put forward above.
While you say you reject much of the thesis, you actually confirm many of its key points—especially about The Patriarchy functioning as a catch-all concept that blocks deeper analysis.
Your experience highlights one of the central contradictions of feminism: it often positions itself as for women but in practice, many feminists define their politics primarily *against men*.
Yes I accept many of the points about use of the term "patriarchy" being too often a thought-stopping cliche. But on the whole I think you are using a straw woman argument: as most feminists are far too entangled in trying to sort out specific knotty interactions of biology, acculturation and economics, for the overarching term "patriarchy" to have any use.
And we got to this point long before learning about the existence or theories of Jacques Lacan: interesting though they may be.