There’s two sides to the story. At least. Always. Feminists spend a lot of time these days attacking the patriarchy. Patriarchy is defined as “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.”
Well no, I don’t defend that. I’m in favor of equal opportunity. (Achieving equal outcomes is inappropriate as a goal.) Is anyone in favor of patriarchy? When feminists attack patriarchy, might they be attacking a straw man? Evidently.
However, a different definition of patriarchy is offered by Will Knowland in his video ‘The Patriarchy Paradox‘. Knowland says that patriarchy is largely based on biology, and it centers on 3 roles: protect, procreate, and provide. Women are biologically incapable of ‘protecting’; and in order to ‘procreate’, women need men. The fitness of women for the 3rd role – ‘provide’ – is debatable. Using Knowland’s definition of patriarchy, women are in a world of hurt without men – defenceless, unable to reproduce, and starving to boot.
The whole discussion of sex, gender and roles is part of the postmodernist/marxist project of identity politics: dividing us all into groups and setting us against each other. It’s unproductive, exclusionary and dehumanizing.
Some people now say “sex is a social construct “. To the contrary, the American Psychological Association’s current definition reads thus (capitalization is in the original): “Sex refers especially to physical and biological traits, whereas GENDER refers especially to social or cultural traits”. We’re clear on this, yes? Gender is cultural, sex is physical.
Are men and women equal?
Does anyone really assert that women and men are equal? Never have been equal, never will be. Exactly what are we talking about? Equal pay for equal work? Equal pay narrowly defined is a number, so that’s easy; but how is equal work defined? Same job title, but disregarding all the other differences that determine pay, like experience, qualifications, and competence?
One problem, not a small one, is that in cases like pay where multiple variables determine the outcome, we try to assign the cause to one variable.
Let’s be careful about understanding exactly what the meaning is of “equal pay for equal work”. Does ‘equal work’ encompass differing levels of competence, experience and potential? Does ‘equal work’ include total value contributed? Note – according to an article in Forbes magazine, men are ten times more likely than women to be killed at work. Equal pay for equal work?
Do we still assume innocent until proven guilty?
Apparently not. How many of us assume today that Deshaun Watson is innocent? How many of us assumed that Bill Cosby was innocent? We should all remember examples like the Duke lacrosse team accusations. There are many others. See my blog post Believe All Women.
I’m reminded of the howling mob chasing poor Frankenstein through the village. Frank had a bad image, but he was innocent. Male activity in general is viewed with far more skepticism than is warranted.
Are there examples of women going too far?
Yes, there are. Mayim Bialik (candidate for the hosting job on Jeopardy!) is seen as an epitome of female probity. However, see her flash Piers Morgan on camera, live at about 90 seconds into this video. Or, have you ever encountered a female sales person with a bare midriff? I have, at the Norco Medical store on Stone Way in Seattle. What are the boundaries of acceptable behavior?
How do WOMEN need to change behaviors?
MeToo and Black Lives Matter share one essential – they both assert that all the changes must come from the other side. The assumption is that women (and black people) are blameless. We all know that isn’t true.
Begin with the issues of mindset and attitude. We live in a society that never claimed to be perfect, with high ideals and aspirations that are always a work in progress. Today there is 1. an evident lack of gratitude or even recognition for what has been achieved; 2. an unearned sense of moral superiority and omniscient knowledge, and 3. the demand that we have to implement whatever it is RIGHT NOW. I find all of that grating.
The project of putting men and women together in the workplace is a change to – I’m guessing – five thousand years of practice. We don’t know exactly how to make it work, THERE ARE NO RULES!
And that’s a problem. One interesting topic is dress and grooming. How much of women’s fashion, today and over the centuries, has focused on establishing and exaggerating sexual attractiveness? Aren’t lipstick and other types of makeup a systematic form of deception? Bare midriffs in the workplace? A women can be sexy, but we’re not allowed to sexualize. Isn’t that a contradiction?
Is sexually-related behavior is permissible at the workplace? Any answers out there? If you’re interested in a good commentary on this issue I recommend the current drama series on Apple TV+, ‘The Morning Show’. A relevant statistic is that 20% of marriages result from relationships that began in the workplace. So it’s against the rules? Or just…dangerous?
The Bottom Line
I absolutely 100% support equal opportunity for women.
It is not true that everything male is bad, and everything female is good.
It is not true that we’re obliged to believe every accusation by a woman against a man.