How could/would breaking the patriarchy benefit men

[Knotted]

Well this is a thing that gets talked about. At very least in a sort of HR department feminism sort of way. "Don't worry men benefit too from taking down the patriarchy as well". Which is perhaps a little counterintuitive, but then again those manosphere types don't seem very happy.

Personally, I'm out of my depth on this sort of thing but I've been watching FD Signifier videos on the youtube (don't worry he's pretty sound) and it's got me thinking. What makes a positive male role model? Is even asking that question a failure to break out of gendered thinking?

I mean don't know!! Trying to be a normal human of any type gives me a headache but I've probably picked up a load of habits without even realising them nevermind assessing them. But tell me what you think!

Disclaimer: This is not the main issue of course, and I don't want this thread to be stealing any thunder.

 

[story]

I suppose one starting point for this would be to determine the ways in which the patriarchy harms men.

And -or how does the patriarchy benefit men. What benefits accrue to men because they live and are conditioned within a patriarchal system?

Or even more basic than that, how is the patriarchy seen and acknowledge from the male perspective?

What is a male-view definition of the patriarchy.

 

[Poot]

.

 

[story]

I’d say bringing down the terrifyingly numbers of male suicide and male on male violence would be a benefit. This kind of collective self harm is a huge central issue that arises from the dysfunction of the patriarchy.

But that’s all end point benefit. How do we get from here to there?

 

[Knotted]

I suppose one starting point for this would be to determine the ways in which the patriarchy harms men.

And -or how does the patriarchy benefit men. What benefits accrue to men because they live and are conditioned within a patriarchal system?

Or even more basic than that, how is the patriarchy seen and acknowledge from the male perspective?

What is a male-view definition of the patriarchy.

To answer that last question in an empirical sort of way. I think the male-view of the patriarchy is provide for and protect your family which is of course myopic and missing all sorts of shit, but that's probably where most blokes are at. Deep sense of failure if you can't do that.

 

[story]

To answer that last question in an empirical sort of way. I think the male-view of the patriarchy is provide for and protect your family which is of course myopic and missing all sorts of shit, but that's probably where most blokes are at. Deep sense of failure if you can't do that.

No. That’s not the patriarchy. That’s not it at all. Not from any perspective.

That might be what men strive to be, or feel obligated to achieve, or sense an innate drive to do, or consider part of their identity, or rail against as gender stereotype, or gender performative conditioning, or… But it’s not The Patriarchy

 

[story]

Sorry, that was probably unhelpful.

You‘re saying that’s what you consider the patriarchy to be?

Or are you saying that you reckon most men think the patriarchy is a set of codes for male behaviour?





ETA
When I had a conversation (fairly recently) with a happy long standing salt-of-the-earth old fashioned couple (she keeps the house he does a physical job to bring home the bacon), he said he feels his role is protector and provider, and knows that does not give him dominion. He also said that that was sometihg about him personally, in his personality, that chimes with the patriarchy but was no governed by the patriarchy (“a lucky accident that really benefits me, but also I’m really lucky to have met her” he said). He’s very much a natural feminist, in the sense that he has huge and basic respect for women as independent people with sole agency over their own lives. I’ve known them for about 30 years and I really think it’s the most equal relationship I’ve ever known. But I’d also say that because their pattern suits the patriarchal pattern, they don’t have much conflict to deal with.

 

[Knotted]

Sorry, that was probably unhelpful.

You‘re saying that’s what you consider the patriarchy to be?

Or are you saying that you reckon most men think the patriarchy is a set of codes for male behaviour?

Well neither really, but that's what I reckon most men's ideological relation with the patriarchy is.

 

[Edie]

The patriarchy doesn’t benefit men. Only a small number of wealthy men.

 

[story]

Well neither really, but that's what I reckon most men's ideological relation with the patriarchy is.

So what is your own personal take on it?

 

[story]

The patriarchy doesn’t benefit men. Only a small number of wealthy men.

The trick is that it makes them think it does, by giving them the illusion of dominion, which they are then scared of losing.

 

[Edie]

The trick is that it makes them think it does, by giving them the illusion of dominion, which they are then scared of losing.

I dunno if they are really? Maybe I’m wrong, I’m tired so shouldn’t say more.

 

[Knotted]

So what is your own personal take on it?

I know I started the thread and everything, but I don't really have a definite take on any of it. I think in feminist theory patriarchy is a system of oppression (mainly) of women. I think that system has its own momentum and perhaps unexpected consequences and will naturally be viewed differently depending on where you stand in relation to it. I hope that's all very generic.

(Men in general don't have a view on the patriarchy as such because they rarely think in those terms.)

 

[story]

The patriarchy doesn’t benefit men. Only a small number of wealthy men.

I’d also say that in any dynamic, power accrues to the person who has more patriarchal rights.

 

[story]

I dunno if they are really? Maybe I’m wrong, I’m tired so shouldn’t say more.

Starting the thread on a Sunday afternoon means that it’s going to get a slow start I reckon.

Also, I’m meant to be going out, so can’t get into this right now.
But thank you for starting this thread Knotted

 

[furluxor]

This is such a huge topic, here's just what comes to mind:
1) In a gender-equal society we could all stop fighting the gender wars and focus on other stuff.
2) The pressure of conforming to a particular gender stereotype would be reduced or removed so everyone can relax and just be themselves.
3) Everyone could focus on the work that interests them and fits their skillset, which would benefit people (psychologically) and the society (through higher quality output).
4) Sharing power equally would result in better relationships between men and women in a couple/family setting as well, and hence less strife.
5) In various environments women would bring previously untapped resources to the table, which would benefit all.
6) Learning to share power of any kind is a lesson in diplomacy and co-operation that's got applications outside the gender relations.
7) As a previously disenfranchised group, hopefully women would usher in change benefitting other disenfranchised groups, which will invariably include men (e.g. men of colour). Even if it didn't include men specifically, diversity is beneficial to all.

And what makes a positive male role model? The same that makes any person a positive role model: kindness, emotional (and other) intelligence, courage, insight, openness to change, etc etc.

I'll get off the pulpit now.

 

[smmudge]

The way I see it, to ignore the needs of 50% of the population is a actually a huge drain on a society's resources. If you don't know why things are going wrong or are hard for a particular group, you just end up throwing good money after bad or trying to fix things in completely the wrong way, or can't even see where you're losing resources.

If you actually figure out what the problems are, what makes things easier or safer or healthier, the benefits are greatly multiplied and thus the whole society can enjoy them. Sounds vague but there are plenty examples in town planning, transport, housing, healthcare, work, non-paid work etc etc.

Sorry just reading Invisible Women right now and it's quite clear that patriarchy does not benefit even one half of society. So would probably be a good place to start for this question.

 

[mango5]

I read this in an Indian newspaper recently, “Patriarchy promotes toxic masculinity that dehumanises men and fosters discrimination and violence against women and girls." There is a lot of value in this statement, but I also found some rather odd (to me) notions of toxic masculinity here How Toxic Is Masculinity?.

 

[Serge Forward]

I'll have a go, it's a bit vague and overly general but...

Any system that is based on unequal power relationships is not only damaging to those who that system defines as less equal, but also damages those who hold that power, whether real or perceived. For men, that damage can be psychological due to unrealistic expectations of women based on patriarchal ideas that do not in any way connect with the reality of most women. Any heterosexual relationship which tries to adhere to patriarchal ideology is unlikely to be fulfilling to women (obviously) and men. Also damage can be material in that the idea of men holding patriarchal power in most relationships is case of divide and rule which mostly benefits those who really hold the power and wealth in society...

I could go on but then I ran out of steam...

 

[campanula]

Entirely a function of capitalist gain and surplus value and the gendered worker. Devaluing the labour of care-givers and nurturers demeans us all, making profit the only metric of achievement and removing the multivarious joys of creativity and caring.

I am pretty damn certain I could go on (and on) but I am eating my dinner

 

[story]

See, I’d say that capitalism is the function of the patriarchy. Yeah obvs they’re really closely entwined, codependent, chicken and egg. But seems to me that the patriarchy is where all the other shit begins.

Saying “that’s mine because I have power to say so and enforce that” (common to capitalism & patriarchy) must have started somewhere at some really basic level of social interaction. Was that based on trade and capital in the first instance or some other form of inequality?

It must have been something universally recognisable and replicable.


Anyway.
we can’t tackle one without also tackling the other.
Burn one, the other falls.

 

[Winot]

One answer to the OP - by allowing fathers to feel culturally comfortable doing more childcare. Resulting in less pressure on them to be the capitalist provider and a more equal and better relationship with the mother of their children.

 

[Rob Ray]

This is technically about the positive representation of masculinity represented by Waymond in Everything Everywhere All At Once (great movie btw), but also I think highlights some of the difference between what patriarchy tries to make of men vs what we might actually want out of life, and what makes us happy.

 

[mojo pixy]

Entirely a function of capitalist gain and surplus value and the gendered worker. Devaluing the labour of care-givers and nurturers demeans us all, making profit the only metric of achievement and removing the multivarious joys of creativity and caring.

One answer to the OP - by allowing fathers to feel culturally comfortable doing more childcare. Resulting in less pressure on them to be the capitalist provider and a more equal and better relationship with the mother of their children.

May be apropos of nothing but whereas more previously male-preserve jobs are attracting a lot of women now .. transport, logistics, football, the armed forces .. I'm not seeing men flocking into traditionally female-preserve jobs like childcare, primary education, healthcare and nursing. That suggests to me that some (men's) jobs are respected and valued as aspirations for everyone while some (women's) are still regarded as 'just for women'. This balance needs adjusting but I don't know how.

 

[TopCat]

May be apropos of nothing but whereas more previously male-preserve jobs are attracting a lot of women now .. transport, logistics, football, the armed forces .. I'm not seeing men flocking into traditionally female-preserve jobs like childcare, primary education, healthcare and nursing. That suggests to me that some (men's) jobs are respected and valued as aspirations for everyone while some (women's) are still regarded as 'just for women'. This balance needs adjusting but I don't know how.

My then wife (who very much identified as a feminist) declared that my being the primary care giver rather than a nursery undermined her role and status as a mother. She had a lot of demands about providing too. Broke my heart.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

May be apropos of nothing but whereas more previously male-preserve jobs are attracting a lot of women now .. transport, logistics, football, the armed forces .. I'm not seeing men flocking into traditionally female-preserve jobs like childcare, primary education, healthcare and nursing. That suggests to me that some (men's) jobs are respected and valued as aspirations for everyone while some (women's) are still regarded as 'just for women'. This balance needs adjusting but I don't know how.

There's also the widespread fear of paedophiles and suspicion of blokes around vulnerable people. It puts some men off that kind of role and makes some women wary of those men who go for it. Well publicised examples where abusers deliberately get such jobs doesn't help.

 

[TopCat]

How about the open suspicion of men involved in early years education? This needs to change.

 

[co-op]

See, I’d say that capitalism is the function of the patriarchy. Yeah obvs they’re really closely entwined, codependent, chicken and egg.

Yes patriarchal cultural norms surely well pre-date capitalism. What's the Bible and every other Abrahamic religion if not quintessentially patriarchal?

Christianity says God is a man, you worship his son, all the evil in the world comes from a woman, she was created by him, not him by her* etc etc.

I think most marxist feminists would see the shift from Marx's primitive communism to class society as being the point at which it became necessary to subordinate women since once you have class society, you have inheritance of both power and wealth and for men to ensure that they are able to transmit their inheritance down their own genetic line, they need to control women's bodies and women's sexual behaviour. Everything else follows.


eta * referencing the spare rib here, the idea that a woman was created in, and born out of a man's body, when obviously men are created in and are born out of a woman's body.

 

[newme]

Yes patriarchal cultural norms surely well pre-date capitalism. What's the Bible and every other Abrahamic religion if not quintessentially patriarchal?

Christianity says God is a man, you worship his son, all the evil in the world comes from a woman, she was created by him, not him by her* etc etc.

I think most marxist feminists would see the shift from Marx's primitive communism to class society as being the point at which it became necessary to subordinate women since once you have class society, you have inheritance of both power and wealth and for men to ensure that they are able to transmit their inheritance down their own genetic line, they need to control women's bodies and women's sexual behaviour. Everything else follows.


eta * referencing the spare rib here, the idea that a woman was created in, and born out of a man's body, when obviously men are created in and are born out of a woman's body.

Religion and other irrational beliefs of many kinds have added to the downfall of general society. Look at the US, half of it (ish) is trying to impose a chriptofascist religious state. While kicking off at Islamic extremist factions doing the same with a different book.

Why can't people just get along.

 

[Pickman's model]

Religion and other irrational beliefs of many kinds have added to the downfall of general society. Look at the US, half of it (ish) is trying to impose a chriptofascist religious state. While kicking off at Islamic extremist factions doing the same with a different book.

Why can't people just get along.

Religion is a lot more rational than eg working class tories, vote Labour without illusions, scientific Socialism and so on